Some important questions discussed
in this book: - Are there any civilizations other
than the Western one living in our so-called Global-Age?
- "Eastern civilization"? Is the concept of East
anything more than non-West? Or does there only
exist, in reality, a distinct Chinese, Indian, Arabo-Muslim,
and Western civilization? - Is the construction of
large civilization-states such as China and India an
unparalleled historical achievement? - Do
economic ties always eclipse other forms of affiliation such
as those formed through kinship or
between speech communities? - What is the role of
the "Latin" and the Jewish Peoples in our
Anglo-American-lead Western world? - Is English
today the global language or merely an international?
- Is the Chinese thought pattern closely related to its
writing system? - Is today's world one of
(symmetrical) interdependence? Or rather one of hegemony?
- If the so-called North-South or East-West dialogue fails in
construction a universally accepted world civilization,
then what is the appropriate arrangement for reaching such a
consensus within human-kind. ?

INSTITUT INTERUNIVERSITAIRE

Genève

Interuniversity Institute

INU

The Interuniversity Institute (INU) is an entirely
independent, non-governmental institution founded in 1980. As the
Founding Act states, it promotes the collaboration of academics with
diverse backgrounds and affiliations in the field of human sciences
adhering to principles of strict scientific standards.

INU endeavors to steadily enlarge the circle of people from
different continents and civilizations who cooperate to realize the
two major aims:

1) Freeing the human sciences from any Western-centered or other
authoritarian arguments and sophism by researching and applying
universally acceptable principles and methods, as it is the case in
other sciences. Accordingly, the INU promotes research especially in
those areas, where methods and paradigms can be developed that allow
exact formulation, conceptualization in operational terms and
inductive proofs. The objectives and approaches are detailed in the
Founding act.

2) Contributing to the construction of a truly universal world
civilization by systematic appreciation of approaches and accumulated
knowledge emanating from the different living civilizations. (See
Current main project.)

The field of activities includes - besides research
- conference organization, lectures, documentation and publication
(INU Press).

Indeed, the INU elaborates concepts and ideas, brings to light
facts as well as proposes action. Although INU combats undisciplined
thinking and the proliferation of information parading under the
pseudonym of science, this self-imposed discipline in the creation
and discovery of knowledge doesn't lead to a "weltfremd"
mentality but implies a responsible approach to the solving of
practical problems as perceived by individuals and communities. It
also remains open to the discussion of any new ideas or findings with
any group or individual independent of social status or prestige.
This openmindedness, eliminating all considerations extraneous to its
creative work, determines the INU's approach and spirit. The INU
develops its own research program having its
own priorities, disseminating the results
for a broader audience, but it also serves as a clearing house for
the communication of knowledge coming from others. The INU is a type
of non-governmental cooperative university bringing together
motivated people, a creative circle held together not by egotism but
by common interests. It definitely doesn't try to perpetuate such
traditional institutions as credentials and recommendations,
affiliated or not, student or professor, full or associate, etc.
Indeed, within the INU, dialogue is determined exclusively by
complementarity and community of interest and knowledge. The INU is
fundamentally against any form of self-complacency and
fashionability.

Why and how to cooperate with INU?

As noted, the INU is open to the suggestions and
arguments of groups and individuals from different cultural
backgrounds without hierarchical considerations. It
encourages, assists, and coordinates the work of individuals and
groups following rigorous epistemological criteria.

In conformity with its goals the INU disseminates verified
research results as well as verifiable ideas through its
publications by INUPress and other modern non-conventional means
- so far as these techniques are appropriate to channel scientific
knowledge and do not serve as vehicles for undisciplined
reflection however attractive the presentation might be.

The INU is not guided by other values than sound scholarship and
scientific probity.

You can make commentaries by any of the above mentioned electronic
or other means of communication. The INU replies to all
inquiries.

For practical and financial reasons INUForum's "lingua
franca" is English; however, as far as possible, any
contributions or letters written in any other of the 6 languages of
the U.N. - Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian, and Spanish - as well as
in German - will be considered.

Contents:Preface Introduction I.
Communication and Civilizations
1 The Problem, Approaches, Methods and Presentation II.
Arabo-Muslim, Bharati, Chinese, Western Civilizations
49 Their Axial Institution and the Three Building-Blocks (Shared
Scripture of each one, Genetic Variation of Breeding Communities
and Collective Self-Preservation) III. The West as a
Particular Civilization
119 The Identity of the Western Civilization; its Parts;
Afro-Brazil Amalgam and the Anglo-American "Melting- Pot"
Paradigm IV.
Globalism
245 The Globe as Anglo-American Sphere of Influence V.
The Federative Agenda
339 From Hegemonic "Salvation of the Third World" to
Co- operation among Civilization-States - Name Index with
Bibliographical Reference - Subject Index with Conceptual
Cross-References

In preparation book two: A WORLD CIVILIZATION BY FEDERATION OF
CIVILIZATION-STATES

This unorthodox penetrating study exercises a fundamental
criticism on the bipolarizing approach of the Western social sciences
and politics.

The "civilized West" should accept that there are not
only major past civilizations but more than just one living
civilization with which - at least in the foreseeable future - the
West should coexist, as well as each one with each other.
Identifying these living civilizations and the problems caused
mainly by the Western pretense of being a universal civilization is
the main concern of this work. This first volume outlines the
Arabo-Muslim, Chinese, Indian and Western civilizations
according to their own anthropological, material and scriptural
building-blocks. Because - beyond the present Western "civilization
of business" - every other civilization ranks these 3
fundamentals differently and practices a different scale of values,
each also has a distinct axial institution. Within the Western
world the interplay of the Anglo-American core, the
Latin-Catholic periphery and the Diaspora is treated and contrasted
with the Chinese and Indian civilization-states as well as with the
countries of the Arabo-Muslim civilization brought together in the
Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC). In relation to the
Western-inspired tendency toward globalism projected by a
New-York-type cultural pattern and melting pot, the Brazilian model
is also discussed as a more attractive one for the integration of the
African civilization complexes. The last, concluding part of the
book introduces the second book. It proceeds with the falsification
of the Manichean formula of the Western mind set which divides
the world into East-West, North-South or more precisely into
West and Non-West; consequently it looks for a valid replacement of
so-called West-Third World dialogue by a round table of
civilizations. Therefore the second book will design the passage from
an unauthentic duologue to a worldwide dialogue based on
civilizational pluralism.

ARTICLES

The Relativity
of Human Rights within the era of society based on contracts
between equals.

International
Journal of Human Rights. London,
sept. 2011, 14-36.

Protection by Persuasion.

Contemporary Sociology.Washington D.C., 6.2010

Mobilities.

Contemporary Sociology.Washington D.C., 3.2009.

Stages of Globalization: Priority for
Co-operation among Civilization-states instead of New York-type
Global Mixing of Individuals by Migration (Dialogue among
spheres of civilizations – the Key to safe future)

The Interuniversity Institute (INU) advances scientific research
according to universal concepts of science, without committing
itself to a national school of thought or a particular ideology.

The INU primarily promotes the application and dissemination of
exact knowledge in human sciences.

The INU has basically 2 functions: a critical and a creative one.

1. What is its critical function?

By analyzing postulates, premises, and basic concepts of
scientific theories, the INU strives to identify and eliminate
arguments implicitly or explicitly extrinsic to scientific reasoning.

The INU is independent of any authoritarian argument that
might come from political authority, economic organizations,
information monopolies, academic institutions, or individuals.

Within the academic community, the INU combats sophism,
which by its implicit rhetoric obfuscates creative scientific
research. For that purpose the INU develops and applies the methods
of epistemology (e.g., practical epistemology for scientific
criticism of sociological books), and the sociology of scientific
knowledge.

The INU encourages all publications solely for their intrinsic
scientific merit. It considers anonymous publications such as
Bourbaki's, as a very appropriate way to restore scientific debate
and creativity to their true concern, because anonymity prevents ad
hominem arguments and the proliferation of self-serving publications.

It is clearly within the scope of the INU to consider critically
the exactness of established facts in general. To benefit the
everyday praxis of public life, the INU exposes abuses of
semantics as well as inaccuracies in information that
misrepresent the data of social reality.

2. What is its creative function?

By considering the present state of the human sciences and their
position in the scientific community, the INU claims for them the
same exacting stature that the others have earned for themselves. The
Institute strives to conduct research according to strict scientific
standards. Rather than perpetuating the ambiguous distinction between
'hard science' and ' soft science', the INU promotes research
especially in those areas of the human sciences, where methods and
paradigms can be developed that allow exact formulation,
conceptualization in operational terms, and inductive proofs by
falsification procedures (e.g., exchange, communication, and other
spatio-temporal collective behaviors).

By insisting on vigorous scientific standards, the INU remains
mindful of the societal purpose of knowledge, which is to
enlighten and fulfill human aspirations - individual, collective, and
social. Moreover, the INU's insistence on an objectivistic and
experimental research strategy enhances the internal validity of
findings and so prepares the ground for relevant and responsible
action.

Experimentally controlled research applied to answering concrete
questions also contributes to verifying the effective predictive
power of science and so gives new impulses to further research.

Public and private organizations as well as individuals consult
with the INU, giving advice and expert opinions based on
interdisciplinary and transnational cooperation for
solving technical, political or clinical problems. In order to assure
the full usefulness of its recommendations, the Institute, with out
necessarily agreeing with it, refers ultimately to the preference
system expressed by the decision-makers themselves.

However, these preference systems are not completely out of reach
of possible scientific scrutiny. The INU not only applies the science
of decision-making and assists the decision-makers to reformulate
their questions in scientifically operational terms, but it might
also suggest categories for a discipline, called private science,
in order to explicitly restructure a preference system.

Guy Ankerl:

HUMAN BEINGS ARE
BORN NEITHER FREE NOR EQUAL

(2018)

In this study we
are concerned with the social-political implications of fundamental
observations that we can make concerning all individual human beings
and their societies.In
thelight of these
observations the contribution of the Enlightenment to the world's
"epistemological progress" seems dubious. The
original intent oftheWestern Enlightenment wasto liberate mankind from
unfounded prejudices and bias. But in reality the liberal social
contract is based on the anthropologicallynaive idea of
"self-made", "self-created" men - in the
broadestsense
of the term. This is an
unrealisticutopia
thatthe West tries to present
as universally valid, and therefore imposes it also onother spheres of
civilizationsby the strait jacket of
colonialization.

We
begin our reasoning in
medias res. The
founders of individualistic liberalism - John Locke, Adam Smith,
Jean-Jacques Rousseau - try to (re-)constitute human society based
on contracting
between free andindependent parties. For
them, in general, the reciprocal ("horizontal") relation -
exchange - should be the typical "median" ground relation
that fundamentally constitutes society. (This ideal-typical mental
experimentation is also beyond John Rawls' Theory
of Justice. Harvard
UP, Cambridge, 1971.) The Enlightened will free society from "tribal"
links and create anuniversal model of
society comprising independent, responsible, free human
beings. In principle, the enlightened society should be based on the
empirical observation of Nature (of mankind) and not on some
farfetched daydreaming.

-
In reality, because ofthe characteristic
(anthropo-)biological
conditionsof
the human species, contractual relations - deals between equal, free,
and responsible partners based on consensus - are notand cannot
otherwisebe
the first
perceived (human)
relation. Without touching the question ofhow the human race - as
such - came intoexistence, in general,
the newborn man's first experienced relation is
subordinate
to and dependent onhis
breeder. This exposed, helpless situation creates the prototypical
human relation (perhaps a "tribal" onein the broader sense of
the term, since the upbringing can be done institutionally, orperhaps separately from
the blood-relationship). What is essential isthat this primary
relation is not a reciprocal contracting market-like relation.(In the human race the
newborn's brain is only 30 % of that of an adult. Kate Wong: Humans
Give Birth to Helpless Babies. In: Scientific
American.
28.8.2012.)

No human individual
comes into the world free and
self-supporting (by the way, without his self-will). All become
full-fledged adults after an
unavoidable commitment to the (pre)existing society. In reality, not
a single human society is created from
nothing.

All
these statements seem commonplace, truisms, butnevertheless neglected in
the liberal reconstruction of the society. The market-based,
modern model of society, the idea of a society composed strictly ofcontracts among
independent (self-created) individuals, glosses overthe basic factual
biological condition of mankind. It is a
product of pureimagination.

Society
with all its attributes should exist before the human being becomes
adult and able
toconclude
contracts freely between equal parties. A whole society comprisingequal adults who
encounterone another by chance,
without tribal attachment, looking for initial cooperation, is a
myth, a cock and bull story as is the legend of the twins, Romulusand Remus, suckled by a
she-wolf. This and similar fairy-tales exist to corroborate, to
"prove", that the first relation between human beings could
be equal and not inter-generational.

Indeed,
general experience shows that themost human relations
don't originate from a chance human encounter in a marketplace
between individuals without existing deep "antecedent
relations". For this very reason to declare that the model of
the human society should be fully based on contracts among free
and equalindividuals
is unrealistic (in the best case, utopian).
The "discovery" of contractsbetween equal individuals
as an ideal for society, put
forthby,among others,
Herbert Spencer in his Sociology(T. III, 5) and
J.J. Rousseau in his Contrat
Social(Librio,
Paris, 2015, 13) in the XVIII century (cf., André Lalande
Vocabulaire
de la philosophie, PUF,
Paris, 1962, 185), cannot bring so-called progress, since the
declaration, the positing of this idea itself doesn't transform the
main natural (anthropological) parameters of mankind. (Only perhaps a
biological discovery thatwould allow the human
being to be immediately independent - in statu
nascenti-
as aresome other breeds orspecies of animals -
would bring a societal change.) All efforts to base the constitution
of human society mainly on "horizontal" market-contracts,
deals between equal anonymous individuals,
areahistorical. "We
are born late into history that is well under way."For biological reasons- necessarily - all
societies exist only in continuity.

Instead
of scrutinizing the imagination of some reputed authors again, we
examine here directly the variety of human relations thatconstitute
observable human societies. This concise study is based on our work
Global
Communication without Universal Civilization (INUPRESS,
Geneva,
2000, 501)
and our
article The Relativity of Human Rights within the era of society
based on contracts between equals (International
Journal of Human Rights. London,
Sept. 2011, 14-36).

We
look now at
whatrelations
a human being must bear before he can have horizontal trade between
free andequal individuals.

The
lineage,
therelation between mother
and child, is the foremost one, which itself is already a
continuation of the previous relation between a mother and father.
New scientific research showsthat the apprenticeship
of mother
tongue-
regardingits phonetic articulation
andpronunciation -
begins evenin themother's womb. This
first human relation integrates the infant eo
ipso progressively
in a determined
language community.
Even if this mother-child relation could be undoneby foster parents, the
mother-child relation re3mains the typical, "mean" relation
involving inherited qualities. (Biological research will advance anddeepen these
considerationsbut the in
vitrobirth
will remain an exceptional human artifice for circumventingNature.) Language is a
social phenomenon;
therefore, by way of native language, belonging to a speech community
will be an inalienable (cultural) part of the identity of each
individual.

- The first declared
effort of the Enlightened Days was toabolish the "caste",
the nobility with its entitled inherited prerogatives. However, this
"noble egalitarian" idea becomes a simple maneuver between
social classes if the right of material inheritance remains intact.
The
new order simply concentrates - implicitly
and essentially - the
privilegeson
moneyed classes, called thecapitalist class. This
opensan econocraticera.

The most liberal
philosophers became the apologists of the econocratic societal
systems of capitalism under the regime of aformal (procedural)
equality of individuals. One of the prominent
contemporary apologists
of this order, John Rawls, wrote: "The unequal inheritance of
wealth is no more inherently unjust than the unequal inheritance of
intelligence." (John Rawls: A
Theory of Justice.
Belcamp Press, Cambridge MA, 1978, 278.) Of course, Rawls as an
enlightened author can't address this argument to God but to the
society, and since the right of inheritance of wealth is man made and
that of intelligence not, this thesis is untenable. Rawls himself
addscasually thatthe inheritance of wealth
"is presumably (?) more easily subject to social control."

- Indeed, beyond the
giving
of nurture,
the relation of lineage, the battle for collective subsistence,
creates economic
relations:
production, cooperation and exchange. This could be composed of
horizontal market-relations.
It became the prototypical model for the Enlightened constitution of
the last centuries in Western civilization. If the (inheritable)
capital - means of production and even natural resources -
accumulates in some private hands and the others relyonly on their capacity
for work, we have a capitalistic system.

-
As mentioned, the biological fundamentals of thehuman species oblige us
to recognize that human society can't be (re)constituted uniquely
as a
networkof equal anonymous
partners encountered inthe market-place for an
exchange (perhaps resulting from the professional division of labor
in the society). The relation resulting from lineage is preexistent.

Beyond
the natural necessary relationshipbetween the "rising
generation" and the adult
onethere
is another- more comprehensive, not
transversal but "longitudinal" - generational relation. For
the continuity and change in history we can speak also about aninter-generational
relation, thoughthis is not to be
confused withthe
actual relation between adult and adolescent. Indeed, thehuman race
doesn’tproceedin interrupted succession
- as with some seasonal animals - but as a continuity,even if from
time to time catastrophes
createdisruptions.

This
is a succession of (adult) generations thatshould be distinguished
from relations resulting from the coexisting adult and adolescent,
since the mentality of youth as
such from
that of anadult
is different. Thus, this can be called therelation between parent
and child,
while that between successive generations (of adult cohorts) can be
called ahistoricalone.

At
least in the Neolithic age, - around 6000 years ago, - the historical
dialogue is assured mostly by (ideographic or phonetic) scribal
tradition.

Communities
thatare comprehesiveenoughin time and space toconstitute a relatively
permanent self-sufficient entity, can
be calledcivilizations.
Each perpetuates a cumulative"collective
knowledge" andhas a common
consciousness based on accepted evidenceand memory of general
observation. The imperfection of knowledge is completed by beliefs.

Value
orders are neither innate nor universal but civilizationally
immanent. They vary according to time and space. It is just the
different rankings of values that characterizethe various
civilizations. (See
G. Ankerl: Tolerance: Variation of the Concept According to Different
Civilizations. Democracy
and Tolerance.Paris UNESCO, 1995. Pp.
59-78.)

(Some
successions in value orders could be interpreted as "progress"
or "decadence", as normless libertarian decomposition is
frequently the last phase of an era of civilization.)

Because
of all the given determinants of all human societies by (impotent)
birth and nurture, "rational choice theory cannot provide auniversaltheory of human
behavior." (C. Duncan Watts: Everything
is Obvious. Atlantic.
London, 2011, 252 ). A (realistic) constitution cannotbeconstructed on the
premise that human society is composed solely from calculated
cooperative-associative acts of aheteronomous set
of individuals, independent of their various origins.
The liberal constitution is an arbitrary dream based on "curtailed
reality".

- Present Western thought
triesto invalidate all non
individualistically based (non market-oriented) societal
constitutionsby "archaizing"
them. Indeed, non-Western contemporary civilizational spheres
are ranged in one epistemological agglomeration, ready forcolonialization by New
Imperialism, as
doesthe
London University with the School of Oriental and (!) African Studies
(SOAS).

The postulated value
orders of societies are civilisationally immanent. The
continuity of a civilization is assumed, anchoredby its scribal
tradition
(phoneticor ideographic) inherited
and accepted by the "newcomers" - as noted, again
unilaterally - from the past. The human being- in
addition tothe
newborn-parent relation experience - isalso nested in the
scribal
tradition of
the civilization intowhich he is born.

We can conclude that only
a very limited number of the whole set of human relations can be
ruled by a constitutional principle of (market-like)
egalitarian exchanges that
resultfrom
so-called rational human behaviors. The contemporary globalist
societal doctrine, the individualistic economism, is a "dystopia".
The
humanbeing
is not free-floating. The "omnimobile" individual's
whole personality is enveloped ina halo of his particular
lineage, his mother tongue and scribal tradition largely defining his
individual identity by external determinants, outside hisself-will (own free
will). The world cannotbe reconstituted from a
set of anonymousstrangers' self-projects.

A fundamental
misconception of individualistic, egalitarian, liberalist social
reform is that it tries to obliterate the (anthropological, cultural)
differences, the
givens ofgrown-ups
of the human race, instead of simplyfighting against all
kinds of supremacism.
The simple ascertainment of anthropological, cultural differences in
the organization of the society can't be condemned as racist
or sexist.
Only the arbitrary hierarchical categorization of human beings could
be theobject of reasonable
debate. (L. and F. Cavalli-Sforza: Qui
sommes-nous? Une histoire de al diversité humaine. Abin
Michel, Paris1994. D. Reich:
Who we
are and How We Got Here.Oxford
, Oxford UP, 2018.) And in this sense, in our Western civilization,
even the (inherited) economic situation of human beings is theobject of gross - non
procedural but de
facto
daily - latent and even open discrimination.

INU Forum

This is an on-line publication. Articles can either be added as a
new entry or replace a previous version. Thus each point in time an
"up-to-date" version is delivered.

As often mentioned,
Israel follows the Oded Yinon script
since 1982 to destruct, devise or make inefficient all
arabo-muslim government in Near East which are not subordinated to
Israeli hegemony.

The Islamic Republic of
Iran is the last resistant. To overthrow its government system
is since 2010 on Netanyahu’s agenda. He will not war only
this result, - but for all prices; also war. But this war should
not have Israeli victims only perhaps Americans and soldiers from the
the proxies like the vassal state of Saudi Arabia. For realizing this
plan the Zionists around Trump work on that, like Bolton
who receive the instructions not for Trump but directly from
Netanyahu.

This plan has been exposed on
the Warsaw conference in February 12-13, 2019.

Consequent policy can have only
great power, other s’ ambiguous actions could be explained most
often by various foreign pressures. Exception is Israel. With
the support of the world-wide Zionist (oligarchical) power
configuration installed within the West’s establishments Israel
can follow step by step Oded Yinon strategic script (1982):
destructing Israel arabo-muslim rivals by various means (only Iran
remains as target). China and Russia (since Putin)
also have an independent and coherent policy. The most powerful state
the USA is more and more captive of the Zionist network, This assures
the “coherence” of its foreign policy.

May 10,2019 THE
ESSENTIAL IN U.S. STRATEGY.

The main – well-financed –
think tanks for American security – like CNAS – declare
themselves independent, bi-partisan, - or even non-partisan, -
pragmatic and principled. but no one have the courage to distinguish
explicitly between American and Israeli Zionist interests. Indeed,
the so-called American interest is systematically deduced from the
Israeli one, and this perspective is used by the American
government controlled itself by the Zionist lobby.

For
the time being. in Trump’s circle Bolton, Kushner etc.
“advise” the president about Netanyahu’s
objectives. In present Zionist terms, countries which follow Zionist
interest belong to the so-called (informal) “coalitions”.
The others should accept blames in the media, and can expect even
tentative to upsetting the government.

CONCERNING US NATIONAL STRATEGY:

GREAT POWERS, CHINA AND RUSSIA ARE - of course - USA’S
RIVALS BUT IRAN IS ACTUALLY ONLY ISRAEL’S

Michael Mandelbaum (affiliated also with WINEP) - and Thomas
L. Friedman (NYT March 14,2019,1) tell us that USA should compete
with Russia and China as great powers, - as well as with a relatively
small country non-nuclear arms, Iran.

By ranging Iran among the USA’s concurrent great powers, the
Zionists try to involve the USA in the preservation of Israel
regional hegemony. The Zionist sophism in general is to present
Israeli interest as American one. Delusive strategy!

William J. Burns and Edward Wong (INYT
Apr.29,2019 U.S. angers allies, giving rivals room to build ties)
state that US occupation with Iran – a relatively weak state
compared to China and Russia – is a “short term
obsession”.

In reality it is dictated by the Zionist lobby in the US
administration. A new illustration that US and Israeli interests are
not concordant.

F. Cunningham’s
editorial in Sputnik International (Apr.28,2019).

Of course, like Russia
Today Sputnik is a Russian source, but the article’s content –
quoting OECD Report – is right.

The divergence between US and
the European NATO members (e.g. Germany) goes back to deeper
strategic differences.

NATO was founded as a defensive
organization against the Soviet Union ideologically motivated
expansion. However, since 1990 Europe does not feel
exposed neither ideological nor geopolitical expansion of
Russia. On the other hand, NATO became an expansive
aggressive organization, - see the bombarding of Serbia , integration
of the Baltic states and perhaps Ukraine, – an international
alliance serving US world hegemony.

Summma summmarum: Europe has in
general a reconciliatory stance and will have a pacific coexistence
with Russia – as well as with Iran - instead of a warring
expensive military competition. NATO serves US (and US israeli)
interest.

Do
not forget: Zionism serves the interest of Israel the nation-State of
Jewish people (Knesset July 19,2019.)

*

Apr. 13,2019

The last decades increased
the relative international influence of China as civilization-state,
- as well as Israel’s. The latter declares itself
in 2019 without reserve to be a Zionist state.

On the other hand, Modi’s
Bharat Hindu identity disturbs more the international Zionist press
than Israel identity as a a State of Jewish-people.

*

Apr 9,2019

Israeli election and
Zionist unity

Essential
elements of present Israeli policy:

The
goal is to assess Israel regional hegemony by incorporation of the
whole territory of the “biblical” so-called Eretz
Yisrael into Israel; while destroying , breaking up the neighboring
Arab states following Oded Yinon strategical script (1982); - as well
as destroying the potential rival, the Islamic Republic of Iran.

All
this with the substantial help of the Zionist oligarchical diaspora
well installed in the USA state system.

The
diaspora itself has two parts, on one side, the liberal
Zionists like Thomas L. Friedman, editor of the NYT

(“Friedman:
There are two (!) countries that I’ve …emotionally.
..involved the U.S. and Israel” [NYTApr.12,2019])

and
on the other side, the Orthodox ones (with the evangelical
Christians as auxiliaries) who are as Trump and Netanya funded
largely by the Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson

*

Apr 3, 2019.

New Zionist mobilization
of the (dispositionist) so-call evangelical Christians

After the pure Zionists
planted by the diaspora oligarchy in the US legislative and
executive branches (and even in the President’ family)
obtained the recognition of Jerusalem and the Golan Height as
part of the State of the Jewish-people, the Israeli lobby
mobilizes now the Dispositional Evangelical Christians –
like the Islam-hater Pence, Pompeo . They declare the the
incorporation of the West Bank in Israel is a “divinely
appointed order”. The justification also become not simple
geostrategic but theological for the Christians who wait the
return of the Messiah in Great Israel. (Cf. Shahid Alam:
Israeli Exceptionalism. 2009, 129ff. NYT Apr.1,2019.)

And in East Jerusalem (the
“city of David”) theologically-inspired archeological
digging is used to evacuate Arab inhabitants by Zionist settlers.
(“Unearthing the Jewish acropolis.” NYT,
Apr.3,2019)

Israel’expansionism has
all kind of justifications, - only it is illegal.

See UNSC decisions concerning
Palestine :

242(1967)

338(1973)

1397(2002)

1515(2003)

2334(2016)

*

Anglo-linguistic
imperialism

In
Europe 92 % of 12 grade students learn foreign language, in the
United States of America only 20% are obliged to learn a
foreign language.

Why?

English is is not
the official language of the US, but its use is in fact imposed.
However, because the important Latin-American immigration it is a
fear that in some US states the Spanish-speakers come in
majority and impose their mother-tongue as (second) officiaized
language. This situation creates an opposition from the Anglo-Saxon
establishment. (cf. Chronicle of Higher Education. March
2019.)

*

Trump`s Israel First policy

Jerusalem….breach of Iran-contract…. now
(March26,2019) annexion of Golan Heights..

*

INTERACTION BETWEEN THE WESTERN AND MUSLIM CIVILIZATIONAL
SPHERES

1, The (geo)political sphere of the
Western civilization doesn’t recognize the (equal) sovereignty
of the arabo-Muslim sphere, - and first of all, Israel the
Palestinian sovereignty. Indeed, the West
doesn’t accept the fact that countries with Muslim majority
choices by any democratic elections an Islamist government (as
the Israelis do, - for that matter, - with the Zionist parties). The
West didn’t accept the political results of the Algerian
election in 1999 as well as in Egypt in 2011. (It would overthrow
Erdogan’s in Turkey too.)

Authoritarian or not, the West
subverted by foreign intervention the regime in Iraq and Libya. And
now the Zionist- inspired US government will subvert the Islamic
Republic of Iran.

If the Zionism-guided West doesn’t take over and
over again the initiatives to reign on the governments of
Muslim countries , the cooperation between the West and the
Muslim world would be fundamentally without special problems.
The conflict is geopolitical. (Ankerl: Coexisting contemporary
Civilizations, 2000, Geneva, 346-356.)

2. Religious problems emerge by the Muslim mass immigration
caused largely by the fact that Muslim counties has been « bombed
out » by the West. The resulting mixed coexistence
of peoples from different civilizations living on a shared
territory creates day-to-day problems of lifestyle, - as well
as tensions, and even violence, called today “terrorism”
(see March 2019 New Zeeland and elsewhere).

In consequence, the initiative is in Western hands (playing
often as proxy for Zionist causes: for Israel regional hegemony). If
the West stops to bombard countries inhabited mostly by Muslims , the
immigration created islamophobia will stop too.

March 21,2019.

The Zionism inspired U.S.A. government will no more call the Golan
Heights as “occupied Syrian territory” as the U.N. and
all its other member states do. USA will legitimize it occupation as
calling Golan simply as territory “controlled” by Israel.
This is part of Trump policy of “Israel First”.

For Zionism’s ideological exceptionalism.

After Zionism as doctrine is “immunized” against any
“irreverent” criticism by identifying any as anti-Semitic
– prohibited by law, – the Zionist media can ridiculize
not only Islam but the Christianism. In the “second edition”
of The Second Coming - on a smart manner - opposing Jesus to
his “followers” the true political target is free for
deriding, namely the Christian world with its Church, - completed
with anti-clericalism of the “sexual abuse campaign”.
The Zionist strategy against its rival Muslim world is completed with
the blasphemy of the Christianism is perfect.(See George Gene
Custines: Jesus comic finds a new publisher INYT March
20,19,13.)

*

March 2019. ILHAN OMAR’S ELECTION IN THE US CONGRESS AS A
CATALYZER

As the West Bank is occupied by Israel,

the US Congress of “representatives “ is
also largely by the American Israeli Affairs Committee (Aipac).

2019 Presently the competition for geopolitical influence among
countries – like China, Russia, USA – is not
ideologically based (between “exemplary” liberalism
and “exemplary” authoritarianism), but it is simply a
competition concerning the total economic, political and military
power of the countries.

*

TERRORISM AND ZIONISM

The main Western source about
terrorism is SITE a Mossad-inspired (“translation”-“)
think-tank which identifies implicitly Islamism with terrorism.

However the Zionist liberal New York
Times shows the Zionist radicals with terrorist heritage can be
accepted by present Zionism.

Today for saving his post Netanyahu can form a coalition with the
Jewish Home Party which includes now the Jewish Power party. This
later has as leaders Michael Ben Ari and Itamar Ben Gvir who
“having a picture in his home of Baruch Goldstein, the
Khane follower who -wearing an IDE uniform - massacred 29
Palestinians (February 25,1994 ) in Hebron. The Jewish Power
party will expel the Arabs as enemies from the Biblical Israel, Holy
Land.

And now even with the perspective of this alliance “AIPAC
was honored to announce that Mr. Netanyahu would attend
its strategic conference in March 2019. Of course, with all
this background Netanyahu will have an enthusiastic bipartisan
reception from the US authorities too. (NYT Febr.26,2019,4 and
March 1,2019,9.)

Bravo for the courageous journalism of the liberal Zionist paper.

*

ZIONIST
DOUBLE STRATEGY FOR IDEOLOGICAL PREDOMINANCE

The international Zionist movement opened two fronts for
ideological predominance:

Under the heading “neo-antisemitism”
it tries to impose to all governments the definition of anti-Semitism
conceived by International Holocaust Remembrance
Alliance (IHRM; Bucharest 2016) which - by examples - assimilates,
attributes the anti-Semitic label to all criticisms of Israel policy.
(“Immunity” of Israel.)

For Zionist
exceptionalism - censorship and authoritarianism – it will
demolish the influence, the authority of the Roman Catholic Church
by anti-clericalist attacks, by toxic cloud of suspicion (“The
tension between the official Catholic teaching and unofficial (?)
practice ..grows tauter all the time.” Frank Bruni INYT
February 22,2019,14. Feb. 18,2019.) . But the attack is global: it
touches the fundamental Caricaturing Jesus).

*

Febr.18.2019

Corbyn again.

As already noted, Corbyn is under strong Zionist attack, since he
distinguishes between anti-Semitism and the criticism of Israel’s
Palestinian policy. Now Luciana Berger, Gavin Shuker and 5 other
Zionist deputies resigned from the Labour Party. The Zionist will
hinder that Corbyn could become prime minister in the future.
“Labour activists having called Luciana Berger a
‘disruptive Zionist’ (INYT Feb.23.2019,3.) Roger Cohen
(« I too, like Berger, am a proud Zionist ».atttacks
Corbyn again (INYT March 2,19, 8.) In fact, Corbyn is neither a
Zionist nor an ati-semitic..

*

THE ZIONIST WARSAW CONFERENCE (Feb. 14-15,2019)

The conference of USA', EU', Israel' and the Arab Golf states'
representatives “arming” against Iran is a
brainchild of the American and other Zionists; organized
among others by Jared Kushner and John Bolton.

The MESA (Middle East
Strategic Alliance) – the so-called Arab NATO – would be
a Zionist fifth column within the arabo-Muslim geopolitical sphere.

It served the Israeli regional hegemony expressed already in
1982 by Oded Yinon script.

The goal was to forget the idea of a state of Palestine and the
preparation of elimination the sovereign Islamic
Republic of Iran as last obstacle to the Israeli regional hegemony.

General, principle of analysis:

iÌf in the present international power situation, you will
deeply understand goals and actions of the US. you should follow
and listen the American representatives of the global Zionism, such
as Lindsey Graham, Kantor, Menendez in the legislative
branch, and Jared Kushner, John Bolton in the executive one.

According to un decision the UNESCO directed by the Zionist
Audrey Azoulay declared 2018 Year of Tolerance.

In this spirit the pope visited already Egypt in 2017, a country
where the democratically elected Morsi, representative of the
Muslim Brotherhood movement where reversed by a Zionist inspired plot
of Sisi. (The Copt authority shared the “honor of Sisi’s
presidency.)

Now we learn that the pope visited the
Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirate. (the UAE has
a relatively large catholic population, most without citizenship.)
Abu Dhabi is the (cuckoo) nest of Zionist penetration into the Muslim
civilizational sphere. (UAE also participate in the torturing of
Yemen's people.) Jared Kushner, a confident of Netanyahu and
the orthodox Zionist lobby of the US work here and inWashington
with the ambassador Yousef Al Otaiba of UAE: the objective is
to deprive the Palestinian people from their state on the West
Bank and subordinate the Muslim world to the Zionism.

The pope also is a head of state, as
well as a chief of the Catholic church. He should choice carefully
with which authority mingles.

2019 will be the Year of tolerance
of injustice.

*February 2019.

The US and the Western
allies never accepted that they win the Second World War with
Soviet help. Since 1990, the collapse of the Soviet Union, they
signed with Russia the NATO-Russia Foundation Document in 1997 in
order to limit the NATO expansion in direction of Russia, NATO never
respected it, This caused the Ukraine crisis too,. The West doesn’t
accept multipolarism. But open new arms race.

*

January 2019

The 17
US intelligence agencies make a Worldwide Threat Assessment.

Before studying each country’s power potential in the world,
if the US will not subjugate other countries, the agencies should
establish altogether – first of all - which country
have or could have the interest to initiate an attack against
the US. Today, an attack either from Russia, China or Iran is a pure
speculation instigating tension. This is John Bolton’s policy.

*

Roger Cohen
editor of the NYT wrote: “I am a European patriot because I am
Jew” (NYTI Jan.29,2019,11) Would also he say that he is an
Israeli patriot “beause I am Jew”?

*

25.1.2019: The American coup d’état in
Venezuela is already in Zionist hands: Elliot Abrams’ and
Bolton’s.

*

The Zionist
movement fears again from Jeremy Corbynwhile “it
is entirely possible that Britain will find itself with
a prime minister who has an anti-Semitism problem (??)”
(Ross Douthat in INYT
Jan.18,19,10).
February 10,2019. The Mail on Sunday tries to disqualify him by lack
of acceptable character.

Indeed, as already noted, Corbyn
doesn’t accept the IHRM definition of anti-Semitism (of
2016) which considers the criticism of the diaspora’s
loyalty to Israel and the criticism of Zionism in general as (neo)
anti-Semitism.

*

Fundamental for political analysis

A (Western) country’s relation to the Muslim immigration
should not be confused its relation with a sovereign country with
Muslim majority (like Iran). The West can hinder massive Muslim
immigration while preserving correct relations with Muslim countries
on equal terms. (Program for 2019.)

*

How worked in 2018 the « Israel, - the
Jewish People’s Republic - First » principle?

Under orthodox Zionist
influencethe
recognition of Jerusalem as exclusive capital
of Israel is on way: USA, the “new” Brazil, - the
Visegrad’s nations’ meeting in Jerusalem in January
2019. Hungary, Slovakia, Poland, Czeh Republic became the Trojan
horse of Zionism in the European Union.

US annulates in May 2018 the Iran-US nuclear
treaty and for suffocating Iran introduces secondary boycott against
Iran’s commercial partners.

Strategically, president Trump
“orders” to withdrawal US troops from Syria, “by
the time John Bolton, the national security adviser
visited Israel over the weekend, the
president’s order was effectively reversed.”(NYT Jan
9,19).

Indeed, n the final day of the Zionist Diaspora in
the old US Congress (Cardin, etc.) slipped in a Zionist censorship
act, the Israeli Anti-Boycott Act in a sneaky way. (NYT Dec.20,18).

*

BRAZIL

The Lula and Roussef directed Brazil had a
foreign policy independent from Zionism: the country refused that the
Dani Dayan a West-Bank colonialist becomes ambassador of Israel in
Brazilia.

Under the captain Jait Bolsonaro the country
passes under the Zionist influence.

*

GLOBAL SOUTH is
a heading for the euro-colonialized countries in stage of formal
decolonizing.

“South” as well as “East” are defined only
as non-West. Global South hasn’t civilizational identity. Its
exclusion from the yet dominant West, can give the idea for a
geopolitical strategy replacing the “Third World”.
(Ankerl: “Coexisting Contemporary Civilizations”)

*

Long Waris the journal
of Mark Dubowitz’s of Foundation for Defense of
Democracies(in plural !). It
tells us it is a “non-partisan organization”. In reality,
it is a purely Zionist hawkish organization. Its goal is
to mobilize the world against Iran in interest of Israel. It also
tries to assimilate the geopolitical anti-Zionism to anti-Semitism.
Meanwhile with the defamation campaign against a main political party
in Lebanon, the Hezbollah the ancient editor of Jerusalem Post
Bret Stephens prepares the world opinion - in the New York
Times, his present home-paper – for a new Israeli war against
Gaza and perhaps Lebanon, by justification : « increasingly
likely event of war » (NYTDec.15,2018,9).Stephens-Ehrlich
is one of the most important Zionis warmonger in the press (INYT
Febr.15,2019,10).

*

“Anti-Zionism
isn’t the same as anti-Semitism” says Michelle Goldberg
in the liberal Zionist International New York Times (Dec.8,2018,10).
However, more and more for the practicing and
non-practicing Jews the attachment to Israel – called by
Eliyahu Stein and M. Goldberg –Israelism became the key of
shared Jewish identity. Jet according to Israeli basic law (of
Return) all Jews – diaspora included – are potential
Israeli citizens. On the other hand, if the diaspora are loyal to
Israeli policy - everywhere in the world outside Israel – can
turn anti-Zionism to increased anti-Semitism.

November 2018.

The Yellow Vests
movement in France like the disaffection of traditional parties in
Europe is an expression of the crisis of the system of – the
oligarchy financed – so-called Representative Democracy.

A solution in short term would be the
introduction of quorum:

Nobody is elected, if less than fifty percent goes to the urns.
This would oblige the representatives to listen more to the general
population.

*

The term “transition”
is used esp. since the end of Cold War by Western politologists to
describe the submissive assimilation of other societies to the
American model. (See also Menachem Milson: “the Arab
World in Transition.)

Public ranking versus (arbitrary “civil”)
private ranking of States.

Some “civil” organizations takes the pretention to
rank States according to their « value order ».E.g.
the Freedom House in New York ranks countries according to a
so-called freedom index created by by the organization itself,
Amnesty International does, Transparency International too.

In reality, these organizations have not a representative public
mandate, - often are financed in large part by Zionist or other
politically interested oligarchies, therefore they are biased.

Their “authority” is namely based only on their echo
in the mass media (called also public opinion), hold by publicity of
oligarchies.

*

The New York Times asks (November 21, 2018,
are the Orthodox Jews Jared Kuushner – and Ivanka Kuchner-Trump
– good for Jews. We can only say they are good for Zionism(!).
Only realizations from Trump are Zionist cause:

Moving the U’S embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem;

withdraw from Iran nuclear deal;

shutter a PLO office in Washington;

stopping to help Palestinians through the UN; and

5. voting for
acceptance of integration of Golan Heights into Israel like
Jerusalem. (Nov.2018).

*

November 2018. In Port Moresby on the APEC meeting
appeared the new important subject of world competion: which country
will have more influence in the non-sovereign territories on
the see (which covers 2/3 of the territory of our Globe).

Nov.15,2018. In the American
politics the united bipartisan
Zionistfront is
reestablished: Cain died and Senator Lindsey Graham is now well
associated with Trump. Ivanka Kushner will travel with Graham to
Africa.

*

Real power versus
institutional one.

The European Union speaks in
name of Europe as a whole. Macron and Merkel also in name of
the European Union (and its values) while they have not more
institutional standing in the Union than the chiefs of any other EU
country.

Soros’s ideal is
perhaps Rothschild - or his attitute could be interpreted by simple
self-complacency. (Read Eric Cortellessa; How Geoerge Soros became
the target of both anti-Semits and right-wing Jews. Times of
Israel. Nov.3,2018.)

The use of the label
„anti-Semitism” for intimidation against critique of the
Zionist policy took a new turn May 26,2016 in Bucharest when
the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance
(IHRM) published a so-called „Working Definition of
anti-Semitism which contains 11 examples. These examples make
any criticism of the expansive Israeli policy on the West-Bank
an act of anti-Semitism. Practically it assures the universal
immunity and impunity for Israel, the Zionist nation-State of the
Jewish people. So who criticizes Israel’s policy became eo ipso
an anti-Semite.

Corbyn of Uk Labour Party accepted the definion of
IHRM with reserve he risks penal proceeding like Garaudy had.

What can do the
arabo-Muslim civilizational sphere against the subordination of
Islamic (Golf-)monarchies to Zionism? Help and cultivate Republican
Islam in Turkey, Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood. (Netanyahu in Oman,
Oct.26,2018)

Chinese minority policy.

Muslim Uighurs, Tibetan
Buddhists are persecuted, if the religion is used for
separatism, - as is in Hong Kong, the liberalist movement of Chinese
as soon as it began to speak about independence of Hong Kong.

In November 4.2018. The
oligarchical Zionist lobby will launch a new assault against the
independent Islamic Republic of Iran

The Zionist leader
Netanyahu’s present main objectives are the follwing: (1) the
suppression of the possibility of a viable independent Palestinian
state and (2) (according the old plan of Oded Yinon (1982) -
annihilattion of Israel’s regional rival, the Islamic Republic
of Iran.

Netanyahu’s
intermediary is the Zionist Jared Kushner – son in law of
president Trump – who tries to “instrumentalize”
Prince Salman of Saud Arabia for having the blessing of the
arabo-Muslim world.

In the Diaspora the
Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) is the champion
rider. (Its joounal is « Long War Journal ».)
It was be founded in 2001 by Roland Arnall and financed by
Bronfman, Abramson etc.

Now the FDD tries to divert
the attention from Khashoggi case to other cases involving Iran. (“I
think they have a very strong incentive to cook up some story that
will get us out of this fix” [Gary Samore of Crown Crown for
Middle East Studies at Brandeis])

The Zionists will diminish
empathy for Khashoggi (Simon Wiesenthal Centre etc. See Ron
Kampeas’ article in The Times of Israel
(Oct.19,2018):”Why are some pro-Israel voices joining whisper
campaign against Khashoggi.”)

Richard Goldberg (FDD)
advises to blackmail some directors of Swift for excluding Iran. His
book has the title « The Iran War » (INYT
Oct,18, 6-7)

October 2018.

The
killing of Khasoggi is also an Salafist action against the Muslim
Brotherhood.

2017-2018. The treacherous policy within the Arab
League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.

Prince Mohamed Salman, defense minister of Saud
Arabia cooperates systematically with the orthodox Zionist Jared
Kushner, the son in law of president Tromp – the friend of
Netanyahu - in order to “pacify” the Middle
East without a Palestinian state ; and perhaps even preparing a
war against Iran as Israel wishes.

“Europe’s widening rift with the US over Iran”
by S. Erlanger (INYT Oct.11,19,4). Why? Because the EU follows
less Netanyahu’s consign than the ortodox
Zionist White House.

Polarization
(2018):

The American
mainstream media (NYT etc.) laments about “polarization”
since Trump’s election. Indeed, polarization in the public
opinion is not new. What is new that the liberal force is now in
minority.

*

Fundamental terminology used:

Monotheistic Abrahamic religions :
Judaism, Christianism, Islam

Contemorary Judaism = Talmud,
rabbinic Judaism

Political Judaism = Zionism

Political Islam = Islamism

Halakha versus Sharia

The
expansion of the influence of religions proceeds by “mission”,
conversion. This is the case with Christianity, Islam and Buddhism.
Other religions are exclusivist; they don’t proceed by
conversion but look for elitist status in the society,
for exceptional minority rights, this is the case with the political
Judaism, the Zionism.

*

Sept, 2018. Preparation of new Israeli aggression
.

Since the recent Israeli-Russian conflict concerning
Syria, Russia will enforce Syria’s air defense. Now Netanyahu
and Lieberman prepare to bombard the Hezbollah in Lebanon.

*

Sept.2018

Indo-Pacific military exercise on one side, - and
Russian-Chinese on the other side:

The US division of the geopolitical entity of
non-western civilizational spheres is working.

*

August 2018. Common military exercise of China and
Russia.This Eurasian continental cooperation is the principal
geopolitical guarantee to maintain a global civilizational pluralism
in face of the universal ambition of the West directed more and more
by the Zionists. (Because the anti-China attitude of India, Bharat is
too strongly subordonitad to the US, - preparing Asian-Pacific NATO.)

*

The so-called “Working Definition of
Antisemitism” published by the International Holocaust
Remembrance Alliance (IHRM) on May 26,2016 in Bucharest assures
with its examples 11(!) universal immunity and impunity for
Israel as a nation-state of the Jewish people. (Jeremy Corbyn has
reason. Cf The Labor Party’s anti-Semitism scandal isn’t
going away. NYT Aug.11,2018).

*

The close co-operation between Trump and
Netanyahu concerning the case of Andrew Brunson shows again
that the Zionist world movement works against the independent Turkish
policy. It is probable that in 2016 the plot against the Islamist
Erdogan was a Zionist cause like the overthrow of the Islamist Morsi
government of Egypt in 2013. (Cf. Amberin Zaman: Turkish deal
that sparked Trump’s fury. NYT Aug.9,2018, 1-11.)

All these actions are in the line of Oded Yinon
script (1982) to assure Israel’s regional hegemony over the
Muslim countries.

Signs of advance of Zionism over
Christianism

The New York Times published a triumphal article from
Dan Bilefsky (Aug. 5,2018,2): how “dozen of Quebec churches are
now temples of fitness, cheese and entertainment”.

The NYT also publish often articles about
reconstruction of peripheral old abandoned disaffected synagogues
which have been reconstructed partly by public fund.

*

New York Times July
30,2018, 1-6

“Still standing at White House, and
stepping up” the US Zionist lobby in
Washington as well in New York from the veteran liberal Zionist A. G.
Sulzberger and Kissinger now to the orthodox Jared Kushner, -
Netanyahu’s ear in the White House, - David M. Friedman, and
Jason Greenblatt “and so on. Only their advised tactic is
different but they serve the interest of Israel, the
nation-State of the whole Jewish people, a “natural outgrowth
of Zionism” (NYT,August
2,18, 4.)

*

Adam Nossiter NYT July
30,2018,1-2

The so-called “new anti-Semitism”.

“…during the 2008-2009 war between
Israel and Gaza, anti-Semitic incidents rose nearly tenfold in a
single month in France.”

It
is (a) the aggressive expansionist political behavior of
Israel, - now (2018) nation-State of the world Jewish
people - in Palestine and (b) its support by the organized Zionism in
the West together are the reason what will call the Zionist « new
anti-Semitism ».This is the complete sufficient
explanation.

*.

Democratic political Islamism

"The 2013-military ouster of
Egypt 's first elected president, Morsi of Muslim Brotherhood,
…this coup was watershed moment
for the region, snuffing out dreams of
democracy."

David D. Kirkpatrick
has fully reason (NYT July 28,2018, 11-12). He shows that John
Kerry and James Mattis and passively Obama induced the coup which
demolished the Sunni brand Muslim democratic movement. He shows
also Charles Hagel was reticent.

(Hagel has been nominated as Secretary of Defense
in 2013 and ousted already in November 2014, since for the
AIPAC : “Mr. Hagel will not be sufficiently in lock step (!)
with the current Israeli government..” (HIT
editorial 2013.1.9 8. p. and 12.3.2013.)

Anyway in the
description of the killing of democratic movement within the
political Islamism David D. Kirkland has not the frankness to say
that the overthrow of Morsi is only one but important
step in the realization of the Zionist Oded Yinon often referred
hegemonic plan (1982):

that no major Muslim
country in Middle East should be independent from Israeli influence.

After Egypt, Libya,
Iraq Iran's demolishing is the next step to ralize Yinon's Plan.

The torpedoing of the
democratic political Islamism of the Muslim Brotherhood
produced the expansion of Salafist terrorism, and the
bombardment of Muslim lands the mass emigration to
Europe.

*

The Knesset declared at July 19,18 the state of
Israel to be nation-state of the whole Jewish people in
exclusivity and without defining the country's borders..

There are 2 main implications:

1, All Jews as potential citizen of the
nation-state of Israel should be loyal to this state; and

2. the conquested occupied West-bank with its
population is under Israeli sovereignty.

UK Labour leader Corbyn refuses to
accept the smart "new anti-Semitism" concept of the
Anti-Defamation League - and of the IHRA - which would include in the
anti-Semitism censorship the criticism of the State of Israel. For
legally blaming antisemitism (like in France), its definition
should be neutral and should not serve partisan purposes. This
campaign against Corbyn goes on for months, - now harder since Israel
declared itself an Jewish national state.

July 20,2018

Tunisia

The Islamist Ennahdha party won the municipal
election.

In order to have a just and lasting peace with the
arabo-Muslim geopolitical sphere the West should recognize that - in
general - in the countries with Muslim majority the Islamist parties
win the democratic election, - like in Israel the Zionist parties.

July 18,2018.

The American Zionist establishment is irritated,
frustrated if president Trump had face-to-face contact with president
Putin, when they are assisted only (!) by interpreter. Indeed, in
this case the Zionist lobby can't immediately interfere in the US
state affaires.It is deplorable that the dependance of the US
adminstration from the Zionist lobby became so totalitarian.

Trump handle very roughly all his weaker allies
(Merkel etc.), - except one Netanyahu. Why? because of "personal
sympathy"? no, because the Zionists are now in the West on the
top of pecking order. Without this evidence, you can't understand
present international relations.

Archi-chauvinistic Anglo-Saxon categories in the
US.

New York Times asks (June 23,2018,5): White
minority in U.S.? Indeed, since they count statistically
"whites who are not Hispanic origin"!This
category defining people of color as "nonwhite"
(including Hispanics) group will not work in any kind of coalition."
(Jenifer Richeson of Yale University.) The nonwhite is namly only an
(excluding) category and not a group in sociological sense.

Since Trump election, the the orthodox
Zionists have predominant power in the US Administration ( Kushner,
Greenblatt, Friedman etc. etc.). By Nikki Haley (herself Sikh
origin), representative of the US in the UN tried to transform the UN
into a pro-Zionist organization. For this purpose, Halvey contacted
representatives of 125 countries - with UK's and Netherlands' help -,
but without result.(In fact, John R. Bolton, member of ther Jewish
Institute of National Security of America works on this objective
since 2005, as he was US's UN representative.) So June 19,2018 the US
leaves for the UN Human Right Council in Geneva - as it did
before from UNESCO in Paris. (See also André Allemand's
article in the Tribune de Genève,
June 22, 2018.).

Israel First, US second policy.

June 19,2018,( NYT 1,5)

Now the Zionists control even the USA
relations with Asian lands: Mr. Jared Kushner became
intermediary - with Mike Pompeo - in relation with
China and North Korea in secrete by behind the back of non-Zionist
Tillerson - who was secretary of State in 2017. And Kushner has even
not a permanent top-secrete cleaning in The USA (which he represent).
He has certainly in Israel.

June
14,2018

For
the US "normalization" of the international status of
a country - its legitimation - is its subordination to the States.
And in this case the totalitarian regime will be called simply
authoritarian like Saud Arabian. For professor Tylor Cowen of Mason
University Saud Arabia is the example for North Korea. "
Geopolitics is relevant: "enter America's orbit instead of
Beijing's." (Ross Douthat, NYT June 14,2018,13)

*

Coherence
of the US foreign policy (2018)

If you
analyze various acts of the US foreign policy from viewpoint of
Zionist interest, all become very coherent. (ISRAEL FIRST policy)

The essentials:

For the US foreign policy - as well as the mass
media - it would be a sacrilege to distinguish (!) between US and
Israeli interests. Indeed, Actually, the alignment of US policy with
Israel's interest is assured by the fact that the US interest itself
is defined by the big American think-tank's (WINEP etc.)
financed by the Zionist oligarchy.

"Noble" competition among US
politicians to be the best Zionist.
(NYT June 9,2018, p.4))

David M, Friedman, ambassador declares (May 33,18)
in the Times of Israelthat
in the US "Republicans support Israel more than Democrats".
The Democrat chiefs of the Zionist lobby in the Congress, Senator
Benjamin L. Cardin and Representative Eliot Engel of New York say
this is wrong. Finally Friedman accepts (in a tweet) that in fact
"American support of Israel needs to be bipartisan".
Indeed, US Congress is not the Knesset but still - today - without
being Zionist, politicians have no access the the American Congress.

Trumps ridiculous
rhetoric:

"America
First",

In
reality Israel
First;

Trump displaces the US
embassy to Jerusalem

and breaks with
Iran

- by opposition to
Obama and

-for keeping his
electoral promises (to AIPAC?!).

In
reality all these had been required from Netanyahu and the
Zionist lobby for years.

Anshel
Pfeffer wrote :(Its's Bibi's world now in New
York Timesand
Haaretz
May
20,2018,13) :"On May 8 Trump delivered a speech that
could have been written by the Israeli prime minister....
fulfilling of Netanyahu's goals."

E.g., Senator Tim Kaine with Bob Croker work on a new
complement to the War Power Act which will authorizes the president
to bombard Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Libya. By chance all are
Muslim countries. (NYT April 26,2018,9.)

June
9,2018.

Susan E, Rice wrote in
the New York Times (June 9,18 p.9) that Trump "offended almost
every members of the international community, except Israel.."

Indeed, Trump himself follows the instructions of the
Zionist network.

Since, the Korean issue is not a Zionist priority,
it is also possible that the extreme emphasis on this issue is a
diversionary manoeuver to hidden the preparation of actions against
Iran (and its force in Syria).

*.

June 9, 2018.

The G7 by raising the possiblity for Russia to
reintegrate (perhaps?) again the G7, try to perturb the cooperative
meeting between Putin and Xi.

Netanyahu drummer of the Zionism travels from Moscow
to Berlin London and Paris to sell his idea to destruct Iran.

June 2, 2018.

US has the most cynical Zionist
administration in its history,

The "world" and its representatives, the
UNSC is not "divided" about this issue, - the US was
obliged to use its veto right against all (!) for hindering the
condemnation of Israel new massacre in Palestine.

May
14,2018.

Today, Israel kills
more than fifteen unarmed Palestinians. The significant fact is that
it can do it without any international sanction as consequence, -
because the increasing Zionist influence in the West.

May 23,2018.

The German foreign
minister told that he holds a strong emotional bond to Israel,
In his inaugural speech Mr. Heiko Maas said that he has entered
politics because of Germany's crimes of Auschwitz.
(New York Times, may 23, 2018,11.)

May 8, 2018.

Indeed, the Zionist
lobby exercises its unbridled influence:

(In the USA "domestic
reason" is the code word for the AIPAC etc. pressure.)

- Trump displaces the
US embassy to Jerusalem (even on disputed ground);

Trump denounces
the Iranian nuclear agreement.

Israel as well as
the Western powers bombarded one-sidedly Syria without any
counter-measure.

Suppressed Palestinian reprelsentation in Washington.

The
Chinese-Russian cooperation remains the only counterweight against
the Zionist world-coalitions.

"Israel
First." May 15,2018.

Indeed, the Zionist
influence is so strong in the West that in order to preserve its
independence and economic viability Iran can count only on Russia and
China.

According to the
ISRAEL FIRST policy US looks for military presence (at least a
base) in all Muslim countries: Iraq, Libya, Syria. Afghanistan, etc.

The
occult Zionist international Coalition is preparing belligerent
provocation against Iran , - with Israel as silent
partner

In
the spirit of the old Oded Yinon plan (of 1982) all Israel's regional
rivals should be eliminated (or dismembered), - however Syria and
Iran remains.

Under the direction of
Netanyahu, Avigdor Lieberman and Bennett as silent partners the
American Zionist coalition - with Sheldon Adelson's, Thomas Kaplan's
etc. money – organize since years the United Against Nuclear
Iran with Joe Lieberman, Dennis Ross and other so-called
neo-conservatives the provocative action against Iran, -
involving now Salman's "new Saud-Arabia"; of course without
visible Israeli partnership.

Now in the US
Administration the actors are at place with Pompeo and Bolton
time-tested Zionists for provocations.

According to the old
plan of Oded Yinon (1982) Israel's rivals Iraq, Libya lost power and
Syria is now under breaking up. (The democratically elected Egyptian
Islamic government of Morsi has been reversed by the Zionists
favored Sisi.) It remains Iran as independent state. As already
noted, if we will understand the present situation we should
not study Trump's and Macron's etc. expressed intentions but
that of Avigdor Lieberman's, Naftali Bennett's and Benjamin
Netanyahu`s which are represented in the US administration directly
by the Ortodox Zionists seed around the president David
M. Friedman, Jaced Kushner, Jason Greenblatt as well as now by John
Bolton and Mike Pompeo. The goal is the suppression of Iran's
independence. The subject of discussion is only: which is the
cheapest way to reach this goal.

*

How
democracy became the enemy -

is
the title of Roger Cohen chief editorialist's article in the
New York Times

(April
7, 2018, 9-11).

-
Indeed, the Zionists haven't the democratic majority, - except in
Israel and in the mass media.

«

Mobilization
of the Israel lobby against the UK Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn

In
order to hinder the future election of Corbyn as UK premier minister
, the pro-Zionist lobby tries to overthrow the Labour leader by
insinuating he is an anti-Semite. The Zionist censorship tactic is to
systematically qualify anti-Zionist as anti-Semite. Indeed, since 3
years when the Miliband brothers lost the Labour's leadership,
this party is no more under Zionist direction but it is not
anti-Semite. (The campaign against Corrbyn is typically
supported by the Zionis Lobby in New York (Read Bret Stephen
former Editor of Jerusalem Post and now with NYT. He also is
affiliated with the Anti-Defamation League. B.S.: Jeremy Corbyn,
Accidental anti-Semite NYTApril
1, 2018,14 and 6. Cf., already NYT Apr. 29,2016, March 4, 2016 and
April 10,2018, 9-11.)

*

Zionist
Purification in the U.S. Administration.

Trump is already
encircled by the Orthodox Zionists like

his
son in law, Jared Kushner responsible for Israel-Palestinian
relations,

In March 2018
Trump replaced the last non authentic Zionists in his government Rex
Tillerson and H.R. McMaster by the aggressive “evagelical”
ultra-Zionists Mike Pompeo and John Bolton.

The
UNSC decision 2234 of 2016 declares clearly that Israel's settlement
policy on the West Bank violates international law; however as
all (!) resolutions touching Israel doesn't include any sanction or
coercive measures.

For
a strategist of the Jewish People Policy Institute, Shmuel Rosner
"that the memory the Holocaust has in some ways became the
main manifestation of commitment to Judaism is well documented."
However Rosner advises to change the direction of pilgrimage from
Auschwitz to Jerusalem. ..Jewish youngsters would do better to
focus their energies on Jerusalem." The
battlefield.

The issue of
immigrationis not a
"metaphysical" question but a sociological one. Its
desirability depends from the number and speed of the arrivals as
well as the cultural difference between the persons arriving and the
autochthon population. (G. Ankerl: Migration
overspead in tropical Africa.)
In the new so-called global world order only one country can make the
immigration dependent from religion, Israel.

*

Freedom of research, worldwide?

New York Times, Jan 31.2018, p.10:

1. "many countries have a law
against denying the Holocaust..."

2. "whoever accuses, publicly
and against the facts, the Polish nation...being responsible or
complicit in the Nazi crimes.. shall be subject to.. a penalty
of imprisonment.."

The
Global Empire plays the Holy See:

"According
to the Global Democracy Index of Economist Intelligence Units
report, only 19 countries have been termed completely democratic in
the very essence(!) of the definition." (February 3,2018)

*

Aggressive Zionism will initiate a
war against Iran through Lebanon and Syria

Following the good old Oded
Yinon plan (1982) perhasps Israel will attack Lebanon and Syria
with US backing. now the Israeli and US armies execizise
on the West Bank (Jupiter Cobra). (The plot against Hariri has not
worked.)

Thomas L. Friedman - who insures us that "I am
not anti-Iran" - should qualify Lieberman, Bennett and
Netanyahu as "crazy" warmongers and not
Nasrallah as he did (New York Times February 1,2018,11

·Why should be Iran the greatest threat
for the US (and not China or Russia) (Lawrence Wilkerson. NYT
February 6,18,10)? Because Trump follows the policy: Israel
first, US second. "The team from Trump get the idea?" The
Foundation for Defence of . Democracy - financed by the Zionist
Bronfman, Abramson and Adelson and supported by the chief Zionists
in the House senator Ben Cardin and Engel. However, all
the present wars against Muslim states are Netanyahu's wars.
Driven
down the road to war, the tendency No More War for Israel is absent
in US because the ignorance of the people “snowed”
by the Zionist media.

"Personal
terror"

Extract
from Jennifer Szalai's review of Ronen Bergman's - journalist based
in Israel - book Rise
and Kill: the Secret history of Israel's Targeted Assassinations
(2018).
"the book title comes from Talmud... assassination is defined as
self-defense. Zionist underground movements employed what they called
'personal terror' - a campaign of bombing and killing...Many
men fought in the Zionist underground later became establishment
figures in Israel., including Yitzhaks Shamir and Menachem Begin. "
"Since World II, Israel has assassinated more people than any
other country in the Western world." (New
York TimesFebruary
12, 2018.)

*

Davos 2018:

Trump with Netanyahu: Israel First.
Bipartisan position!

("Israel, Israel über alles!")

*

The issue: Jerusalem as only capital of
Israel (2018).

The Zionist media tries to
"explain" (Max Eisher, The Interpreter, NYTJan.23,2018,4) Trump act to transfer
the US embassy to Jerusalem by pressure of the so-called Evangelical
Christians like the vice-president Mike Pence.

In reality, it is not a large group in
the population itself and is subservient to Zionism.

Robert
Nicholson of Christian Evangelical
advocacy group wrote: "Of
course there are other truly , not necessarily “Christian,”
reasons why evangelicals support Israel. Shared ethical and moral
foundations; the feeling of kinship between two settler democracies
with a sense of their own exceptionalism; the impulse to partner
against enemies of the democratic West..."

The major reason for Trump pro-israeli policy is
the predominant Zioniat pressure group around the American political
establishment. As well-know Trump is submerged by an Orthodox Zionist
circle which exercise a quasi unlimited influence. (Jared
Kushner, Jaron Greenblatt etc. All Netanyahu's men.)The Pew survey
tries to deform the question of applying UNO decision of
division of Palestine, by asking rather the American people: are you
pro-Palestine or pro-Israel. This is a false question the most of the
people are either one or other, but mostly neutral, balanced like
president George W. Bush was.

For that matter, according to the NYT the poll made
by Brookings Institution shows that ca 70 % of American were
against moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem.

*

Kurds as Israel's proxies.To
follow the old Yinon plan (of 1982) Israel will continue to diminish
the influence of its regional rivals by American assistance. Now
remain Iran and Syria. One of the main instruments, proxies are the
Kurds in Iraq as well in Syria. The Zionist American army deployed
already quietly thousands of military personal “for military
instruction” in Syria for help the Kurd-directed border area.
According to Joshua M, Landis it is "a fig leaf for the
continued American presence" in Syria. (Cf. American-backed
troops could solidify Kurdish enclave.., (NYTJanuary 18,2018). “Kurdish militia
imports soldiers in Syria fight” .It fit with hte interests of
American-led coalition” (New York Times January 31,2018,p.3. )

*

December 18, 2017. Recall
.”Back in December
2016, the UNSC adopted a resolution that explicitly said the
international community “will
not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with
regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through
negotiations. "This
decision has been proposed by Egypt, and later Egypt under Zionist
pressure tried to "differ it" (until Obama is no more in
office), but New Zeeland took it.

*

US Hegemony 2017.

Since the Cold War, John Foster Dullas tried to
encircle completely the world (outside US influence): the creation of
the NATO (1949) was the first step, the Western powers tried to
constitute also a "curve" from the Arab countries (Bagdad
Pact 1955), and a third courve was the SEATO (1954).

Now the new curves are called "Coalitions":
Beside NATO the Indo-Pacific one and now by the "new" Saud
Arabia lead third one: a Muslim coalition of 41 courtiers against
"terrorism". (The Pakistani general "Raheel Sharif
is now the head of a new Saudi-lead military coalition of
mostly Sunni states that is being billed as a Muslim NATO." [
INYT Nov.26,17,p.11])

*

Jared Kushner is the go- between for
Pro-Zionist Arab princes and Israel. The destruction of all Muslim
countries , independent from Zionism is the goal. It is not a simple
reproduction of the traditional Shiite-Sunnit opposition. Turkey,
Qatar are mostly on Iran's side, - and Egypt also was
before the overthrow of Morsi's elected government

*

October
13, 2017.The first time in the world cultural organization, UNESCO
came under Zionist control.

The
withdrawal of US and Israel from UNESCO was a simple circus to push
the election of the Zionist French-Moroccan Audrey
Azoulay to be general director of UNESCO. In normal turn
the next director should be an Arab, - e.g., Hamad al-Kawari of
Qatar. It is again the putchist Sisi's Egypt, - the Zionists' Trojan
horse. helped to divide the Arabo-Muslim world and allow Azouley
election. The end result was 30:28. (Israel and USA have the voting
right until the end of the year 2017.).

*

You
learn from the INYT that president Ebessi, a former prime minister of
the dictator Bel Ali is a "Copernican
revolutionary",the
true follower of Arab Spring.- who reversed the
elected government of the Islamic party Ennahda. It is an
Anti-islamist pro-Zionist restoration of the submissive
dictatorship like Sisi's did after Mubarak in Egypt. Ebessi
will grant amnesty for Ben Ali. The submission of arabo-Muslim world
is re-established.

("In
Tunesia, the next Arab Spring" New
York Times Oct.2,
1, 9.) And of course the new Islamic revolts in January 2018 are not
without ground.

In
the same issue of INYT
(p.9:
Devorah Baum: We are all Jew-ish now") you
learn even that"We are not all Jewish , but are all becoming
Jew-ish." (By what?)

*

Oct.
20, 2017.

From
unicentric world order to polycentric one.

The Western
hegemony goes to end. Apparently China tries to replace by a bipolar
world order. In the given situation, the world peaceful development
needs to recognize the plurality of Coexisting Contemporary
Civilizational Spheres. (G. Ankerl) Bharat should have a place in
this pluralistic world order. The danger is that because of he
Chinese forcing of bipolar order, India becomes a junior partner of
the States, - and by that the USA perpetuates its world dictate.

"Asian" triangle. 1.10.2017.

China
has interest to respect India as an equal major power, - otherwise
the US, makes from India a (subordinated) military allies on
the sea (and politically in Afghanistan).(Mattis visite India
(Sept.31,2017). (Cf, Indo-Pacific project.)

The
West will encircle Eurasia, - and in addition reign over the
Arabo-Muslim civilizational sphere.

*

The
editorialist of New York Times, Roger Cohen wrote (Sept.30,2017,p.9)
that the expression “deutsches Volk” (German peole)
should be replaced by deutsche Bevölkerung (German population),
because the first expression is nationalist.

It
would be interesting to know what he means when he reads in all
Zionist publications the expression: Jewish People. Should also be
replaced by Jewish population? Or exceptionalism?

*

September
16, 2017.

If Kurdistan
comes, it will be first recognized by Israel; namely it will be its
Trojan horse in the Muslim world. (See the declaration of Ajelet
Saked, Israeli minister of justice.)

August
31,2017.

In fact, since
the end of the Cold War (and the Soviet-union) Western
initiative to enlarge its influence (NATO one's) created tensions and
conflicts.

*

NEW STRATEGIC
STEPS OF ZIONISTS AND THEIR INCREASING INFLUENCE

Résumé
2017

1. At beginning,
Israel is provided with arms mainly by help from the Zionist
oligarchy in the Diaspora.

(The first
credits from US and the West had conditions.)

2. Half century
ago the American oligarchy changed strategy: beside financing
Israel directly, it discovered that a much more efficient
investment would be to finance systematically congressional and
presidential candidates who will be - by possible later blackmail -
obliged to vote credits for Israel. This investment in the Israeli
cause has a multiplied effect. This policy (of AIPAC, etc.)
began with the punitive non-reelection of president J.
Carter [1981] and George Bush [1993] who made yet American help
conditional. Meanwhile the assistance to Israel increased
constantly during the past half century.

3. In parallel,
the direct engagement of the Israeli army against the Muslim
neighbors diminished, and more and more the West becomes a "proxy"
for make blood sacrifice for Israeli interests. The war against
Iraq (2003) exemplifies this tendency.

4. A second
step in the charging others than Israel in its battle against the
Arabo-Muslim geopolitical sphere - which is not under Zionist
influence - is the mobilization of Sunni Muslim countries to
combatting (the Shi'i) Iran in the future.

5. This military
"reversion" from the Israeli army to other armies is
accompanied by a new rhetoric too. In the Zionist
political publications, in the press events are no more
analyzed openly from viewpoint of Israel. The Israeli interest
is only implicitly expressed always as "Western and
Israeli" interest. (Of course, it is no possible
contraction between Western and Israeli interests, since the
Western think tanks - financed largely by the Zionists -
defines the Western interest itself by Israel's
one.)

*

30.7.2017.
The present situation:

President
Trump is encircled by the Zionists. The so-called neoconservatives in
the Congress follow AIPAC's instructions, and Trumps' son-in law,
the orthodox Zionist, Jared Kushner is now within the internal
circle of the U.S. Administration. Both serve primarily Israel's
interest defined by Netanyahu. The consequences are: systematic
anti-Iran policy, military penetration into Syria, as well as
weakening Putin's ("post-Khodorkovsky") Russia.

Iran
is U.S's rival? No, it is too small to be. China is U.S.'s
competitor. Iran is Israel's rival which has hegemony in the Near
East.

Stephen
Wertheim (King's College) Cambridge writes (INYTJune
25,17, 10):"Trump appears to be evolving into a kind of
neoconservative." Like the double citizen Charles
Krauthammer..In this case the America First will be replaced by the
Israel first and America second).

*

25.7.2017:
The whole Ukraineconflict
originates from the Zionist West:

McCain
and co reversed in 2013 the elected Yanukovych government in order to
extend NATO to the Russian border. Now the McCain follower
Volker tries to do that not de jure but de facto with arm delivery
etc.

*

The Zionist
inspired U.S. and NATO policy will install permanently military
bases in practically all (Dar al-Islam) countries with Muslim
majority; they will stay in Afghanistan Iraq, Syria, Libya, Qatar,
Turkey - perhaps in Pakistan. And they try to reverse the governments
which resist. This generates Islamist resistance and emigration.

The
West has also 2 very different problems with the Arabo-Muslim
world:

1. The Western
aggressive penetration and occupation in Muslim lands;

2. the designation
of the place of immigrant Muslims in the Western societies.

The first can be resolved by
diminishing Zionist-inspired imperialism, and by this attitude the
second will be diminished too. I

As Islamism is a
political movement like Zionism, the peace between the West and
the Muslim civilizational sphere should be concluded between the
the Islamists - like the democratic movement of Muslim
Brotherhood - and the NATO countries.

The Muslim
immigrants` problem is a question of the application of Western norms
and the toleration (limited application) of the Muslim norms in one
of the same society.

If
we will a global political development, where civilizational
pluralism replaces in the world the Zionist controlled American
hegemony, it is necessary that China (as well as Russia) and India
cooperate - on equal footing - with each other, and either
tries to replace the Western hegemony with its own.

*

Saudi-Arabia
as Israel ally against the Islamic Republic of Iran? (2017)

Since the
conquest of the White House by the orthodox Zionists -
replacing the liberals - they follows in the name of president
Trump an even more aggressive strategy to assure and enlarge Israel
hegemony in the Near East inspired by Netanyahu as well as by the
extremist Moldovan Avigdor Lieberman.

The goal is
to accept the illegal (see UNSC decision Dec,2017) West Bank
colonization by the Arabs and the whole world. The Palestinian
issue should be put in parenthesis on the international agenda, while
Israeli colonialist expansion should create the fait
accompli.

Under
the previous US Administrations the West eliminated already Israel's
Arabo-Muslim rivals like Iraq, Libya, and it "works" now on
Syria (sending there first time even American military units
["stabilization team"] and bombarding Syria too). The
Netanyahu inspired orthodox Jared Kushner - Trumpmain Near
East totumfactum- will now
mobilize the Saud-Arabia directed monarchical golf states to create a
coalition against Iran, coalition in which eventually can be
introduce stealthily Israel. On this way Israel is recognized
by the Arabo-Muslim world without creating a Palestinian state.

Saudi Arabia
has been already used to demolish the Democratic Egypt in 2013
directed by the movment of the Muslim Brotherhood, - the most
important Arabo-Muslim independent Muslimist (N. Cevik) political
world-organization. Now the American Zionists use Saudi Arabia to
isolate Qatar. Qatar is an important middleman between the yet
indepedent Arabo-Muslim states (Iran) and formations (Muslim
Brotherhood, Taliban, Hamas etc.), and the West. (Mehran Kamrava:
Qatar. Small
State, Big Politics.)

Within the
Trump administration the "unorthodox"
Rex W. Tillerson ties to maintaining good relation with Qatar.
In order to remain independent, Tillerson doesn't nominate Zionist
"experts" in the State Departement like Adams or Robert
Kagan. He prefers to clean his department. How long time can he
resist the Zionist pressure exercised by Kushner and the whole
Israeli lobby? (Sager-Harris-Landler: Discord emerges on Middle
East Policy (NYT
June
28,2017. p. 1,5.)

*

March
26,2017.

The American Israel Public Affair Committee
(AIPAC) has its annual conference with participation of the Zionist
lobby (Israel First!): US vice-president Pence, former Canadian
prime minister Stephen Harper, Blair former British prime minister,
US deputies Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan
etc

*

March
29,17. U.S. will diminish the UN peacekeeping force, - especially
because Israel will suppress the contingent which is on Golan Heights
since 1974 and Golan is now incorporated in Israel. (Nikki R. Haley
US ambassador to the UN dixit.)

*

March
18,2017. With the new UN secretary general, the weak Antonio Guterres
Israel will have more influence in the UN. Israel will not have more
UN interference into its population invasion in the West Bank
and will have even more voice in the world organization activities in
general. Israel is the USA's spoiled child because the
overwhelming influence of the Israel lobby in the States.

Since
Trump is president, the Orthodox Zionist Jaron Greenblatt is
responsible for the USA's Israel policy. Greenblatt reports to the
also orthodox Zionist Jared Kushner, and Kushner receives the
instructions from the Israeli ambassador Danny Dermer.

Trump's
"Iran Policy": "his director of Jewish outreach during
the campagn was an Othodox Jewish immigrant from Iran, his friend,
David Peyman." (NYT March 25.2017, 4)

*

"The
world (!) fears U.S. again, thankfully"by Mark Moyar
(INYTDec.11,16)

2. under
pressure of the American Zionist oligarchy it help by military,
financial, diplomatic and all other means the Israeli expansion in
the West bank, - without condition.

If
these circumstances are suppressed the U'S, would be in security even
without an army (like Costa Rica).

*

(11.2016)
Trump: America first!

Truly
not Israel first, - anymore?

And
in the Senate with Lindsey Graham, John McCain etc. and in
spirit of bipartisanship with Chuck Schumer?

*

A
"maximalist" Western offer to the Palestinian poeple.

Past
president Carter asks that the U.S. recognizes de jure a
Palestinian state; however "measures should include
the demilitarization of the Palestininan state" (in face
of an Israel armed to the teeth by the U.S.).

For
the matter. this is the Western model for the relation with the
independent Arabo-Muslim states in general (e.g., Iran).

(INYT
Nov.29,2016, 1,17.)

*

2016/17.
In the White House bipartisan Zionism reigns: now is the passage from
liberal (David Axelrod etc ) to orthodox Zionism. Trump is
“intimately” encircled by his son-in law. Jared Kushner
and his layer, Jason Greenblatt, head of the Anti-Defamation league
David M. Friedman etc.

Indeed,
we repeat the submission to Zionism is "bipartisan".

Kushner
can have an official status as US representative in the
Palestinian tittle-tattle.

Greenblatt
(with Schumer) hopes that all candidates for the chairmanship
of the Democratic Party will make clear where they stand
on the issue viz,. affirming the unconditional support for Israel.
(INYT Thanksgiving
2016, 7 and 15).

*

RECENT IMPORTANT
EVENTS IN THE ARABO-MUSLIM GEOPOLITICAL SPHERE (2016)

1. July 3, 2013 the democratically elected Morsi -
of the Muslim Brotherhood - as president of Egypt is reversed by a
putsch orchestrated by his defense minister Sisi. US, and Israel
recognize in tree days the putschist president.

Yinon idea quoted by Thomas L. Friedman in the New
York Times. (24.6.2013. and 6.4.2017,9; “partition of Syria and
the creation of a primarily Sunni protected area -. protected by
international force, including USA troops.”)

*

World power
equilibrium yesterday and today.

Yesterday: Soviet
Union was much stronger than Russia is today, but at this time Soviet
Union and China were in conflict not like today. China and Russia are
more or less united.

*

2016 In
foreign policy the two US presidential candidates have only one
question to answer:

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya: Yinon
revanche? A panoramique of chaos in the Arab World.

In: Strategic Culture Foundation 25.8.9013.

(L'idée est repris par
Thomas L. Friedman 24.6.13.. NYT.)

*

(New) NEW YORK
TIMES Oct.2016

Roger Cohen is the
smartest Zionist in the NYT:

he fight now (
before he was for [J-Street and 2 states solution] for one-state
Palestine (=Israel) and looks for politically submissive Arabs
like Reem Younis. ("Why Israel refuse to choose"
(NYT Oct 29,16 cf From suicide bomber to fighter
for peace NYT Nov.1,16).

Roger Cohen quote Moshe Dayan:

Our American friends offer us money,
arms and advice. We take the money, we take the arms and we decline
the advice

Yet it's uncertain (?) if the U.S.
is prepared to calibrate its ironclad support in order to
pressure Israel into change."

Roger Cohen knows why: because the
ironclad blackmail of the Zionist oligarchy.

Curious Zionist control
within (!) the US administration: (INYTSept.6,16, p.8): "51
state Department employees (!) .. signed a 'dissent channel'
memo on Syria, have pressed privately (!) for the US for carry
out airstrike to hit Mr. Assad's plans..."

No
Muslim is born as "terrorist". The situation creates
terrorism, people are radicalized. Why?

Muslims in
general became open to Salafist violent tactic after (!) the
Western governments under Zionist pressure overthrow the elected
Islamist government of Egypt.

Peter
Bergen also recognizes in his article that the raison of
terrorist acts is:

"dislike
of American foreign policy",

"oppositon
to the American foreign policy" and

"objection
to the American foreign policy".

Therefore
the solution of terrorism problem in the West is not an issue of
police but a policy, namely the liberation of the Western policy from
one-sided Zionist influence.

Indeed,
Islamism is the political Islam, while Zionism the political Judaism,
Both concepts include more then one (strategical) tendencies, namely
democratic as well violent one.

(See
also Muslamism in Turkey and Beyond. Religion in Modern World. By
Neslihan Cevik New York; mcMillan, 2015 Jeffrey Guhin in Contemporaty
SociologyMay 2017,297-8.)

*

TUNESIA's
“new revolution” is - according to H. Ibish
of the Washington's Arab Gulf States Institute, - post-Islamist.
(INYT June 3,2016, p.6) This so-called “post-islamist new
revolution" is as Sisi's in Egypt rather a restauration of
Western hegemony. The West intimidated the old Ghannouchi
to distance himself from the political and democratic islamist Muslim
Brotherhood.

The
West dreams about an emasculated Islamism subordinated to Zionism
like Sisi in Egypt.

But
in fact, the Christian Europeans' dream is post-Zionism!

*

We
can foresee (!) the handling of each country by the Western
mass media:

If the influence of Zionist
plutocracy increases there, the handling will be better; in
other cases worse.

Indeed, in Jun 2016 Brazil's, Argentina's image
became better because the regime change.

In
this year Erdogan had a conflict with Netanyahu about the Gaza help
action.

According
to Akyol Rachid Ghannouchi and its Islamist Ennahda Party is
the example how the Islamists should cooperate with the West.

Why?

Ghannouchi
subordinated himself and his party to Western instructions. The West
doesn't accept that an Islamist movement with its majority leads even
a Muslim country (cf Morsi).

*

Defense
against invasion by soft power:

INYT
April
29 and 30: "China places strict control on groups from abroad.
U.S. faults Chinese law on NGOs from aboard"

Is
this an expression of the dictatorship of an authoritarian
non-democratic state?

No,
"powerful
natons, including Russia and even India (! the world largest
democracy) are cracking down on (foreign!) nongovernmental
organizations." (INYT May 2,16,8)

There aren't
in the U.S. itself laws which prescribe registration for foreign
nongovernmental organizations? (Double standard!)

*

11.2016
The new U.S. president, Trump represents a passage from the
neo-liberal Zionist influence to an orthodox-conservative Zionist by
the Orthodox son in-law Jared Kushner and Trump's layer, Jason
Greenblatt. Ambassador for Israel David M. Friedman.

Mr. Trump
is urging Kushner, his-son-law (since 2009 when Kushner
converted Ivanka to Judaism) to join him in the White House. Trump's
sentiment is shared by Stephen K. Bannon; therefore Ron
Dermer - speaking with Trump - could absolve Bannon from the deadly
label to be an anti-Semite. (INYT Nov.18,2016).

*

(Stephen
Castle, INYT April 29,2016, p.3 )

British
Zionist supervision of Labour Party:

Since
Jeremy Corbyn is the leader of British Labour Party the party is no
more unanimously subordinated to the Zionist cause. Its big sponsor,
David Abrahmans, Executive in the Channel Four - and former founder
(with the BBC World and Virgin) of the UKTV - complaint in the Jewish
News that the deputy Naseem Shah "endorsed a Facebook post
displaying a graphic that showed Israel's outline
superposed on a map of the U.S."

Jeremy Corbyn is not a Zionist
like the Biliband brothers, he is facing revolt (INYT
June27,2016,1)

*

The
INYT
(May
2,16,3) announces that the Labor candidate in the mayoral race in
London, Mr. Khan former transport minister is an observant Muslim,
however the other candidate, Mr. Goldsmith's religious belonging is
not indicated in the article. Why?

*

April
26,2016:

The expansion of American military
engagement is for hindering the enlargement of the Syrian
government's influence, and not in relation with the Islamic
State. The pro-Zionist lobby tries for a long period of time to
involve the US against Syria as it did in the case of Israel's
all rivals like Iraq and Libya. It also will the prolongation of the
occupation of Golan highs. Indeed, Syria has now a chance
to win the internationalized civil war with Russian assistance.
By this American involvement the number of victims in Syria will
increase.

*

Apropos:
Impeachment in Brasilia 18.4.2016

“Members of
Congress explained their decisions as they voted for impeachment:
They voted 'for peace in Jerusalem for the truckers 'for the
FreeMasons of Brazil'”.. (INYT,
April 21,2016).

March 29.23016.
The Zionists try to reverse the Brazilian government, since it
doesn't agreed to the nomination of DANI DAYAN as Israel's ambassador
who were chef of the Yesha Council, the umbrella organization of
the West Bank settlers. (al Jazeera).

*Anti-Semitism
as an Zionist apologetic.

If
all individuals born from Jewish mother are

(a) Israelites, now as well as

(b) automatically potential Citizen of
the State of Israel, and

(c) if they also have an other
citizenship,

they have a problem of double (divided)
loyalty.

If in case of conflict of
interest, they opt for Israeli priority as the Zionism dictates,

and they don't immigrate to Israel
(Aliyah) but remain in diaspora,

they are exposed to anti-Zionist
campaign, what will be called falsely by Israel apologists (see
Anti-Defamation League) as anti Semitism used for penal prosecution
(inquisition in the West). However, it is self-inflicted
anti-Semitism.

Consequently, If in 2016 the
Anti-Defamation League or other organization will diminish the
antisemitism,

(a) they should protest by the Israeli
Government against the West Bank settlement policy or

(b) request the Diaspora to be first
loyal to his birth-country's interest.

"U.S. offers $ 38 billion
in military aid to Israel"

by Peter Baker and Julie Hirschfeld
Davis (INYT Sept.15,16).

(Meanwhile) U.S. was effectively
subsidizing regularly criticized

Israeli settlements
operation in the West Bank.

*

INU condemns all
forms of anti-Semitism, but it discusses often Zionism, the
political Judaism (cf. the Islamism as the political
Islam).

Indeed,
the Zionism became - esp. since the non reelection of
President Carter (1981) - a prevailing factor in the
Western foreign policy; and on the other hand the subject
became in the mainstream thought (Think tanks) and mass
media a tabooprotected by
censorship (e.g. France).

Israel, viz. the world
Zionism exercises its power mainly by its Western diaspora, the
Zionist oligarchy.

1. It finances the main think tanks in
order to substitute Israeli interest for Western one (e.g. WINEP).

2 It finances the (re)election of the
political decision makers (also by AIPAC), and finally,

3. by financing and controlling the mass
media it exercises a censorship on the communication between the
decision makers and the people.

Therefore, it is not a
hazard that the USA worked to overthrow the Brazilian
president who refused to accept Dani Dayan - who comes from the
Occupied Territories - as Israeli ambassador;

it also is not a hazard that
Venezuela has a bad image in the press, Israel has not an ambassador
in Caracas any more;

it is not a hazard that Erdogan
has a bad press too, since he has a bad relation with Netanyahu.

The
only question remain open in 2016:

why doesn't Obama - without possibility
to be reelected - force an independent US policy, and accepts
personal and national humiliation from Israel.

And in 2016, of course, all the US
presidential candidates are Zionist.

Only Sanders refused to go for
audition of the AIPAC.

A hero? No, he is Jew and doesn^t need a declaration
of loyalty to Zionism

*

Basic
dilemma of Europe:

The
Western civilization

-
either will pretend to be universal one and therefore must admit the
Muslim and other costums in public life,

-
or it will stay as a particular civilisational sphere with mainly
Christian tradition, and in this case it can ask immigrants to
accommodate.

*

"The
next chapter for Ukraine” after the Zionist putsch (of
Yatsenyuk, Proshenko, Groysman). See the global Zionist front:

"The
Ukrainians who demonstrated against corruption remain an
active force through civic organizations. One of their is,
Mikhail Saakashvili, the former president of Georgia (!), who
was brought in by Porosheno as governor of Odessa.."

INYT
April 16,16, p.8.

*

New York Times'
Zionist prpaganda. Title of an article:

"A
Brussels mentor who spread 'gangstar Islam'"

INYT April 12,2016, p.4

INYT April 9-10 and 11. 2016: Muslim
Radicalization

But why?

The democratically elected Islamist
president of Egypt had been overthrow by a military putsch accepted –
and even assisted – by the Zionist USA. Now the Salafists find
justification for their violent policy.

"Faulting Belgium, not Islam."Yves
Goldstein, chef of staff for the minister-president of Brussels
Capital Region will explain on the German Marshall Funds meeting in
Brussels why the young Muslims can't find their identity in "our
society". INYT Apr.8,2016
p.2)

Why? Indeed, the Belgian government as the other
Western government accepts de facto the expansion of Israel and
participates in the bombing of various territories with Muslim
majority (by an obscure international coalition), like Israel did in
Gaza.

*

Typical imperialism is to control relation
among other countries.

Indeed, the policy institution of China and
Latin America program at Inter-American Dialogue is in
Washington (!) directed by Margaret Myers. (INYT April 5,2016,p10.)

*

The Zionist campaign against (Erdogan's - Morsi's
friend) Turkey's NATO membership goes on, - as did the camaign
against Morsi in January 2013, - meanwhile the the
Palestinian-Israeli “peace process” should be oblitered.

In the campaign against Erdogan the apostat clerk,
Fethullah Gulen (living in the U.S.) does participate too. (INYT ,
March 31, 9 Thomas L. Friedman and INYT March 9.16. INYT
March 30,2016).

Indeed, the Zionists' objective is to throw out
Turkey from the NATO, (INYT March30,2016,7 [“Does
Turkey still belong in NATO?” INYT March30,16]. Turkey
hinders that, in long view, Israel enters the NATO.

Meanwhile, as we said already, the campaign against
Erdogan goes on since 2010, when Israel attaqued the Turkish Ship
sent to Gaza.

* * *

In the
US the Zionist control is stronger in the Treasury and Defense
Departments than in the State departement, - because the financial
and military blackmails are more effective means than the rhetorical
and diplomatico-legal.

****************************************************************

RESEARCH WORKSHOP :

(See also WORKSHOP 2
below)

New Geopolitical Studies.

The West, and the confrontation
between Islamism, the political Islam and the Zionism, the political
Judaism.

The financing of (so-called)
independent think-tanks and the distinction between US and Israeli
interest.

June 28,
2014

.Netanyahu at INSS think-tank
in Tel Aviv told:

“Obama should find(!) one(!)
think-tank in the States which is ready to distinguish between USA
and Israeli interests.”

Per definitionem, American and Israeli interests
can't clash, since US interest is defined by WINEP and other Zionist
think tanks

Indeed,
there are Zionist control of the US foreign policy on 3 levels:

1.The epistemological: by financing the
prominent think tanks advising the government, in order that the
definition of American interest follows Israel’s.

3.
The same plutocracy controll the media and therefore all the
communication between the poltical decisionmakers and the people.

Ad 1.Literature about the financing
of US think tanks:

Thomas
Medvetz wrote a book about Think
Tanks in America (324
pp .Chicago UP, 2010; CS
July 2014,558). He
criticizes their financing which according to him comes from the
Right and brings biased views. He doesn’t show however
that for the mainstream foreign policy think tanks the main
variable is not Right or Left, Republican or Democrat. Largely the
bipartisan Zionist – or called also neoconservative - lobby
supports them (Cf. in
the USA well known so-called [neo]conservative institutions;
WINEP [Washington Institute for Near East Policy], JINSA
[Jewish Institute for National (!) Security Affairs], MEF
[Middle East Forum], PNAC [Project for a New American Century], AEI
[American Enterprise Institute, CSP [Center for Security Policy],
HUDSON Institute, Heritage Foundation, FDD [Foundation for Defense
of Democracies], FPRI [Foreign Policy Research Institute], IFPA
[Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis], Haim Saban Center at
Brookings Institution; for the personal interconnectedness and
the media connection “These
institutions are funded and run by individuals who are
deeply committed to advancing Israel’s agenda.”
(Cf. Mearsheimer-Walt 131 .) However, in the current literature
about think tanks the Zionist connection is rarely identified.
Mearsheimer and Walt’s work is a rare exception, but their work
is not specially concentrated to the issue of think tanks (175-6,
131, 117). This statement is valid roughly for the whole special
literature because the most authors themselves are engaged Zionists.

---. 2012.
Think-Tanks, Social Democracy and Social Policy. Palgrave
Macmillan. New York.

Plehwe, D. 2008. Forging
a neoliberal knowledge elite (perspective) and restricted pluralism:
The history of the Mont Pèlerin Society networks of
intellectuals and think tanks. New York: Social Science Research
Council.10

---. 2010.
Paying the Piper - think tanks and lobbying. In Bursting
the Brussels Bubble.The battle to expose corporate lobbying at the
heart of the EU. Brussels:
ALTER-EU.

Rich, A. 2004.
Think tanks, public policy, and the politics of expertise.
Cambridge, UK New York: Cambridge University Press.

The
West’s, the “NATO-world's" agenda is
subordinated to the Israeli interest (especially the US’s)

Recapitulation:

The
Western politics is formulated by think tanks financed by the Zionist
oligarchy which defines US interest itself in function of Israel’s.
(In the USA the most well known [neo]conservative institutions are
the folloing: WINEP [Washington Institute for
Near East Policy], JINSA [Jewish Institute for National (!)
Security Affairs], MEF [Middle East Forum], PNAC [Project for a New
American Century], AEI [American Enterprise Institute, CSP [Center
for Security Policy], HUDSON Institute, Heritage Foundation, FDD
[Foundation for Defense of Democracies], FPRI [Foreign Policy
Research Institute], IFPA [Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis],
Haim Saban Center at Brookings Institution. (For the personal
interconnectedness and the media connection see Mearsheimer and
Walt [131].)

On
this basis the American interest coincides with Israel’s eo
ipso, since the American interest is defined by American
Zionists.

Foreign
governments - democratically elected or not - are
backed, legitimized by the USA as far as the Zionist
influence is strong in them. Others are even exposed to subversion,
to the “regime change agenda”. (That concerns today among
others Russia, Belarus,Turkey, Iran, Venezuela, Bolivia. For
subversive strategy see e.g. Michael McFaul; colonel Robert Helvey,
Gene Sharp's From Dictatorship to Democracy; A Conceptual Framwork
for Liberation; Profil Books, London, 2012. for historics Stephen
Kinzer. )

[The
Helms-Burton Act of 1996 (against Cuba) show in general
how the USA (using USAID too) tries to reverse goverments which
don’t follow its instructions. (INYT Nov.11,14, 6)]

Because
the geographical situation of expansive Israel, the West can’t
cooperate and even accept sovereign Islamist states. The
Zionist paradigm for the cooperation with the Arabo-Muslim
geopolitical sphere is the submission of the occupied Palestine.

In
the Arabic core state, Egypt, following Western inspiration (2012/13)
Sisi subverted the democratically elected Morsi regime (2013) because
its independent anti-Zionist tendency.

In
general, according to the Zionist policy no truly independent Arabic
state should be stronger in Middle East than the nuclear power
Israel. Syria, Iraq should be break up in micro-states (Oded Yinon
Plan of 1982; Jeffrey Goldberg).

As
a rule, the West tries to disqualify as chaotic,
disordered and even illegitimate all countries, geopolitical regions
which are outside the Zionist influence, - without distinction such
as China, Russia. (Thomas L. Friedman’s opinion expressed in
the New York Times[Order vs. Disorder 1-4. July
15,2014, etc] is Israel centric worldview.)

The
global influence of the US is overwhelming but not without limit
(China).

However,
thanks to the influence of the Zionist oligarchy in the West,
the “American and Western interests” follow the Zionist
one (called by code Neocon, hawks, etc).

Every
country has positive or negative image in the global media according
to its degree of submission to Zionist influence (Negative for
example: Turkey, Russia).

Therefore
without deep understanding of the international Zionist factor,
geopolitical analysis can’t have validity.

(Remark
for the Vatican:) The opposition between the arabo-muslim world
and the Western one - largely under Zionist influence - is not an
issue

--of blind
violence and hate

but of power and (in)justice.

Explanation
of the present chaos in the arab-muslim geopolitical sphere

It is a
fact that any democratic election in the Muslim world brings an
Islamist majority (Algeria [1990], Egypt, Libya, Tunisia).

Yet the
West can’t support, acquiesce this historical fact.

Therefore
it tries to reverse the political situation by coup d’Etat
(Egypt).

As a
result, the Muslim world learns that it can’t have independent
power by democratic means.

This is the
reason for present violence.

Meanwhile,
the West remains without legitimate Muslim political representation
to solve the conflict with dialogue.

Consequence
is that by the – neo-colonialist, neo-crusadist,
neo-conservative - anti-Islamist mobilization of the West, it looses
its energy in endless battle for Israel’s regional
hegemony instead of concentration for a competition with China.

Summa
summarum:

Basic world
problem:

The American Zionist oligarchy by
financing the prominent American think tanks assures that the US
interest is defined by Israel’s one, and on the other
hand by financing – and helping by the media – their
candidates in election campaign, it assures that anyway, in political
action, US interest can’t prevail over Israel’s

February 28,2016

The destruction and dissolution of stable
non-Zionist countries like Syria, Libya, Libya and Iraq - as
well as Sisi's anti-democratic putch in Egypt - serves the interest
of Zionists.

Neither the G7 nor NATO (nor Obama+Merkel+Hollande)
could be called “the international community”.

The international Community is the UN General
Assemble or its Security Council.

A new US world policy tries to extend its
jurisdiction beyond its national borders

Instead of using the principles of international
public law, - e.g., declaration of war - the USA tries to obtain
satisfaction for its goals by targeting individuals,
targeting by drone attack (in Pakistan), or by blacklisting
(concerning Russia). Beside the CIA, the FBI itself becomes an
important instrument of foreign policy.

This new perspective (used again Russia and Muslim
states) implies that the USA considers the whole world under
its jurisdiction.

(However, in term of efficacy, this strategy
overestimates the (targeted) individuals' influence in international
policy.)

*

Dimensions and terminology for analysis of the
Middle East conflicts and other intercivilizational conflicts:

Xenophobia is not
identical with racism or supremacism.

Anti-Christian,
anti-Semitic or anti-Islam propaganda can be condemned as blasphemy,
or hate speech, but Islamism ( the political Islam) and Zionism (the
political Judaism) are ideologically inspired political movement
and the right to their criticism belong to the right to freedom of
speech.

Understood that
Zionism and Islamism are political movements. Concerning the means,
in both are democrats and violent tendencies.

DISTINCTION

The coexistence between
the autochthonous Westerns population and the Muslim immigrants
is a problem, ans should be resolved by the acceptance of the life
style and norms of the autochthonous Western population.

But the imposition of
Western power and norms on countries with Muslim majority (Dar
el-Islam) is an aggression.

Clarification;

The islamophobic Zionist propaganda
tries to confuse two different problems:

- (1) the desirability the immigration
of large Muslim population into the West and

- (2) the respectful coexistence
between the Western countries and the independent Dar al-Islam.

However,
you can agree with the second without
agreeing with the first.

..The West is today
politically subordinated to Zionism, while in case of
free election, in Muslim countries the majority vote for the
Islamists

1.If a country condemns a military coup which doesn’t
serve its interest, and in contrary it doesn’t condemn another
which serves its geopolitical interest (e.g. USA in relation to the
coup in Egypt or Ukraine);2. if an international organization
like UNSC condemns a country’s action but doesn’t
prescribe sanction (e.g. counter Israel) and again in other similar
cases they prescribe sanctions (e.g. Iran). (See the issue of
nuclear arms in Near East.)

Double standard
on terrorist organizations

The EU and USA dressed an official list of terrorist
organizations:

Most Muslim organizations, even charitable ones are
listed. But often violent - extremist organizations - like the
Israeli Honenu and Price Tag - didn’t figure on this list.
In the Western media the term “terrorism” became a
synonym to Islamism. (See Anshel Pfeiffer’s articles in Haaretz
and S. Erlander: Extremism leads Israelis to look within INYT
July 11,2014)

In the core country of the
Arabic geopolitical sphere, Egypt, the democratically elected
president Morsi has been overthrow in 2013. This
has been prepared already in 2012 outside Egypt, when Kirkpatrick
David D. attacked Morsi as anti-Zionist (IHT16.1.2014/17.1.14). Domino-effect
follows (Tunisia, Libya), since – as already nted - it is
for the Western world unacceptable that the majority choice an
Islamist government.

Th
US is‘profoundly
troubled’ by brutal beating of Palestine teen who turned out to
be American ?
No problem, Israel doesn’t risk American sanction like Muslim
countries. Obama hasn’t
the sufficient independence from the American Israeli lobby and
the Zionist oligarchy for that. This the basic world problem!

June 28, 2014.Netanyahu at Tel Aviv INSS think-tank
told:

“Obama should find(!) one(!)
think-tank in the States which is ready to distinguish between USA
and Israeli interest.”

(Per definitionem, in Washington the WINEP can’t,
since it defines American interest by Israel’s.)

See again WINEP follows Netanyahu’s position on
Kurdish independence too. (INYT July 5, 14, p.5)

*

The international Organization of
Islamic Conference changed its name in 2011 into ORGANIZATION OF
ISLAMIC COOPERATION(OIC). It
is "the collective voice of the Muslim World" and
works to "safeguard and protect the interests of the Muslim
world in the spirit of promoting international peace and harmony.”

What did the Organization fo Islamic Cooperation
concretely (!) to solve the bloody conflict in Iraq (and Syria) and
to establish within the “Umma” - if not a effective
cooperation but at least - a peaceful coexistence?

The idea of Brothers Defence Alliance between Turkey,
Pakistan and Iran (2014) goes back to former Turkish prime
minister Necmettim Erbakan’s proposal for a pan-Islamic
NATO of 8 countries in 1995 (with reference to Jama al-Din-Afgani
(1838-97).

INTERNATIONALLEGAL
ORDER. The Soviet power was accused of subversive activities. Now the
situation is reversed: the so-called «Western democratic
nations» reverting all regimes of
which
don'tfollow
its dictate. Indeed, the West helped to overthrow representative
(!) democratic
regimes like Egypt, Ukraine. They also try to do in Venezuela, Libya
(and even inRussia).
They
use the social media based in USA for inducing crowding.
They
follows Nye’s soft power theory.

Soft power.

Indeed
even Pew and other so-called “non-partisan data tanks”
try to “eclipse “ democratic vote results by - so-called
global and other - public opinion polls based on dubious
samplings and ambiguous questionaries in order to legitimate coup
d’Etat (in Ukraine [2013-4], Egypt [2012].

In order to prevent the
(re)election of non popular candidates, they should introduce a
quorum, a minimal number of votes to be elected.

The Neocon – and
neocolonialists - will have – or maintain (?) – world
hegemony. The only hope to preserve civilizational
pluralismby
geopolitical equilibrium, comes from an active and effective
cooperation between Russia and China (and the BRIC).

(Guy Ankerl: Coexisting
Contemporary Civilizations.
ISBN 2881550045).

The
Soviet Union and Bolshevik danger are finished. Against which
geopolitical enemy is necessary to have a special North-Atlantic
Alliances? Russia or the Arabo-Muslim geopolitical sphere? No
one of them threaten any NATO member-state.

Interestigly,
the US refused to Germany – and other non-Anglo-Saxon allies –
to be integrated into the so-called “Five Eyes”
convention of the Anglo-Saxon powers. (See Atlantic Charter of
August 1941) (INYT July 12,2014)

Does come the opposition from the American opposition
party, the Republican?

No expressly, the opposition is bipartisan. The party
affiliation is not a main parameter in issues concerning Israel
interest.

“Many member s of the Congress in
Washington would like to see this whole effort collapse.”

Is this perhaps Netanyahu’s position?

No, no, it is the position of the American
Democrat senator Robert Mendendez and American Republican
senator Lindsey Graham (who are by chance near to the American-Israel
lobby AIPAC)

*

Presidential
election 2016 in U.S.

In the "pluralistic" U.S. the bipartisan choice
means:

you can choice Demacrate or Republican

both financed by the Zionist oligarchs like Sheldon Adelson from
Las Vegas

There is a competition : to determine which one serves better
Zionism.

On the marge:

Important fact about the
distinction between the "gay right" and the publicity
for gays.

"..anti-gay violence has
never been about individual acts against individuals (!),but.
Against the very idea that L.G:B.T. people should
be free to express .. themselves in public."

Jim Downs A History of anti-gay
violence . (In International New York Times, June 13,2016,
p.13.)

*

INTERRELATIONSHIPS:

If you hear in the synagogue that
you as Jew should support Israel without condition, the criticism of
Zionism becomes - as a result – Anti-Semitism. Israel can’t
have regional military hegemony without the efficient pressure of the
American Israeli lobby upon the US Administration and Congress. This
the basic world problem!

Until
the American Administration isn’t enough independent from the
sponsoring Zionist oligarchy - in order to penalize Israel for the
expansion on the West Bank, - the West can’t have normal
friendly, cooperative relation with the Arabo-Muslim world.

The West doesn’t
will democracy in countries with Muslim majority, since the Islamist
parties will win the democratic election. Now it equates terrorist
groups with Islamism, however the true causality is reverse:
since the West doesn’t accept democratically elected Islamist
government, the terrorist movement expands.(From Muslim Brothers to
Salafism).

The US accepted
and promoted the overthrow of democratically elected
Morsi – since he was the ancient president of anti-Zionist
group in California. The military coup d’Etat has been
prepared already in 2012 outside Egypt, when Kirkpatrick David D.
attacked Morsi as anti-Zionist (IHT
16.1.2014/17.1.14).
Now the US will tacitly accept the subversion against the Libyan
government by the American General Khalifa Haftar (their puppet like
Sisi).

Vandewalle-N Jahr: Libya’s
unexpected Strength INYTMay
9,15: “A system was adopted after the war to prevent
certain political parties, particularly Islamist (!) ones
from dominating the system.” (See also F. Wehrey: Taking side
in Libya. INYT July
8,14; INYTJuly
29,14, p.4)

Turkey's government defends itself
against Fehhulah Gulen, an apostate Muslim clerk who live
now in Pennsylvania and serves Zionist interest (see INYT March
5, 2016).

Reaction to Roger Cohen's An
Anti-Semitism of the left (INYT March 8,2016):

Anti-Semitism on the left or on the right; it is entertained by the
fact that the Jewish communities in all countries identify themselves
with Israel's expansive policy.

GLOBAL SOUTH is a heading for the euro-colonialized countries
in stage of formal decolonization:

“South” as well as “East” are defined only
as non-West. Global South hasn’t civilizational identity.
However,Its exclusion from the yet dominant West, can give the idea
for a geopolitical strategy replacing the “Third World”.

WORKSHOP
TWO

THE WEST'S INCREASING
SUBMISSION TO THE ZIONISM(4.2017).

ZIONISM: AN
AVOIDED - COVERT, CONCEALED - MAIN FACTOR OF GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL
POLITICAL ANALYSES.

THE
WEST'S PROPER INTERESTS AND THE INCREASING ZIONIST INFLUENCE IN
THE GLOBAL SCENE

ACTOR OF
THE WORLD POLITICAL CONCERNS:

The
identification of the Zionist world movement as a player in the world
politics, presenting itself as representative institution
of the global political Judaism and the necessity to define
independently the interest of the
Western-(Christian) civilizational sphere.

THE
OVERVIEW OF THE WORLD POLITICAL SITUATION

6

THE
NECESSITY OF A ZIONISM OBSERVATORY (Z.O.) FOR ASSERTING
THEWEST’S OWN STRATEGICAL INTERESTS

17

THE TASK OF
A Z.O.: DEFYING THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT AND ITS UNBIASED OBSERVATION

21

THE
IDENTITY OF JEWISH PEOPLE, ITS POLITICAL INTEREST AND
REPRESENTATION. INSTITUTIONAL INCARNATION OF THE ZIONIST WORLD BODY:
ISRAEL’S DEMOCRACY AND THE OLIGARCHICAL ORGANIZATIONS OF THE
DIASPORA

26

THE
OBSERVANT ZIONIST: COSMOPOLITAN IN HIS NATIVE COUNTRY AND
PATRIOT IN ISRAEL

39

THE
GEOPOLITICAL AMBITION OF THE ZIONISM

46

THE
EXCLUSIVIST TENDENCY TO REIGN (the world Zionism as globalism)

49

THE PRESENT
POLITICAL AGENDA DICTATED BY THE ZIONIST POWER CONFIGURATION
(Z.P.C.)

51

EXCURSUS
ABOUT THE SO-CALLED NEO-CONSERVATISM

53

THE SOPHISM
OF THE SPONTANEOUS COINCIDENCE OF WESTERN AND ISRAELI INTERESTS:

THE
PARALYZING AND BLURRING OF WESTERN OWN INTERESTS THROUGH ITS
DEFINITION BY THE ZIONIST THINK-TANKS

56

I. THE
FUNDAMENTALS OF THE ZIONIST POLITICAL EPISTEMOLOGY:

1.THE
MONOPOLY OF ZIONIST RESEARCH AND THE INTERDICTIONS OF POSING SOME
QUESTIONS

2.
THE APPROACHES OF REPUTABLE SO-CALLED INDEPENDENT, NONPARTISAN
ACADEMIC THINK-TANKS: THE CONTROL OF WORLD POLITOLOGICAL THINKING

70

3.THE
SO-CALLED “FORBIDDEN FRUITS”

78

PARTISAN
ORGANIZATIONS: ZIONIST WATCHDOGS

(AND THE
NEW C.I.A.)

80

THE ZIONIST
INQUISITOR ORGANIZATIONS AS EXCLUSIVE TENANTS OF
“ANTI-SEMITIST” STIGMATIZATION.

Penal
inquisition

(C.F.C.A.:
G.O.G.N. for Israel’s apologetics)

84

EXCURSUS
: I.N.G.Os AND G.O.N.G.O.s FOR SUBVERTING NON-ZIONIST DOMINATED
STATES IN GENERAL /Russia etc./

87

The
Western political elite and its financial dependence from the
Zionist oligarchy for election candidacy

II.
WAYS AND MEANS TO STOP THE ZIONIST GLOBALISM

91

***

FOREWORD

Since the
Zionist movement in 1948 arrived to create “the state of
Jews” (Abraham Burg), the movement succeed even more and more
to submit the long-term interest of the Christian based
geopolitical, mainly Western sphere to the Zionist one.

(The
ideological bias is such that through the so-called
Judeo-Christian construction the Christianity will be reduced to a
messianic Judaic sect. (E.g., Pat Robertson and the Jewish Jay
Sekulow teaching.) They constitute the so-called Christian Zionists
by the dispensationalism [Mearsheimer 132, 128-140], and in the
American political life by the neoconservatives, who are
instrumentalized to serve Zionist interest. In 1974 the
Lausanne Covenant reunited
2.300 evangelical leaders from 150 countries . The Baptist press see
the Zionist intervention in the Near East open the an
opportunity for the Gospel in the land of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."
Charles Marsh: Wayward Christian Soldiers in IHT,
21.1.2003.)

Under Zionism[i]
– in parallel with Islamism,
which expresses the political Islam – we understand the
political Judaism. It includes all these political movements
which have the intention to represent politically the interest what
it calls the "Jewish people".

(Forexample,
in the USA the "neoconservatives"
constitutes a group which - like Wolfowitz, E, Adams, Perle -
pushes the U.S. to intervene worldwide in Israel's geopolitical
interests. The
Jewish People Policy Institute (JPI) viewpoint
is all-Jewish and long term, and a cornerstone of its work is the
premise that Israel is the core of the Jewish people.") Its
think tank systematically and professionally examines the challenges,
threats and opportunities that the Jewish people are coping with, and
develops principles for policies and strategic alternatives. In
addition, it may recommend on immediate steps needed to be taken in
order to secure the continuity and prosperity of the Jewish people.
JPPI was founded in 2002 by the
Jewish
Agency for Israel, and is run as an independent body. It is
headed by a board of directors that is now chaired by Dennis
Ross, the special advisor (!) for the Persian Gulf Southwest Asia
in U.S. President Barack
Obama's administration. Its current President is Avinoam
Bar-Yosef.)Shmuel
Rosen, editor of The Jewish Journal of JPPI wrote
(8.8.2014, INYT):
If
all Jews are a family, it would be natural for Israelis
to expect the unconditional love of their non-Israeli (!)Jewish kin.
.If they still want to root for a Jewish state, there's
no substitute for Israel."

Not
only the primacy of Dennis Ross founded JPPI for Israel's
interest is clear, as well its enlargement of this requirement for
the Zionists in the US government. [E.g.,
In October 2009, the Institute convened in Glen Cove, New York for a
two-day event to discuss what it calls ‘the
triangular relationship of Jerusalem, Washington and North American
Jewry’.
Dan
Shapiro of the National Security Council
attended, and
‘spoke on behalf of the Obama administration, listened to the
concerns of participants and communicated them back in
Washington’.[9]]

IfwespeakaboutpoliticalJudaismweshould consider that the orthodox
rabbinate which has a function as state-religion in Israel is not a
straight continuation of the Abrahamic Old Testament which is a
shared patrimony of the three monotheists religions - Judaism,
Christianity and Islam - but it is based on variousTalmuds.[ii]

/1./An “epistemological”
specificity of our epoch of free speech is that if somebody will
be free from the accusation of anti-Semitism, he should not write
critically about Israel or the Talmudic tradition, except if he
self is Jewish origin. In the later case he is exempt from accusation
to violate a taboo. However for instance. criticizing the
Muslim umma could
be freely done by not-Muslim, Zionist authors[iii].

The basic problem with the Zionism as
doctrine for the West is that

(a) it
proclaims as premise the complete coincidence of the Western
and Zionist interests. (The Zionist newsman of South
African African origin wrote in the IHT
[7.9.2001]:"Israel really is an European outpost in the Arab
world." He forgets that the majority has not European Ashkenazi
origin.)

(b) In a
second conceptual step this common interest will be defined by
Israeli one; i.e., the Zionist interest substitutes
simply the Western proper interest.

On this
manner the Arabo-Muslim geopolitical sphere which can limit Israel
expansion and regional hegemony became ipso facto an adversary to
the (whole) West as such.

If this substitution is not
working automatically, the Zionist plutocracy undertakes a
“intellectual corruption”[iv].
It exercises a rough blackmail either by financial means or even by
legal censorship (penal inquisition) pretexting anti-Semitic
inspiration. The Anti-Defamation League is the most important
specialized organization which tries to exclude from the
mainstream intellectual life tendencies which define and follow
proper interest of the West, - independently from Zionist one. This
is the basic "epistemological" foundation of the
expansive Zionist policy.

The installation of the
doctrine "Zionist interest defines the Western one"
together with the financing of (re)election of the political elite by
the Zionist oligarchy makes possible that the burden of the
expansionist Israeli policy is transferred from Zionist community to
the western Christian taxpayers. (The clearest proof for this
affirmation is, that when the American president expresses opposition
to the expansion of Jewish settlements on the West Bank, and
nerveless the Israeli government follows its expansionist policy, the
American government doesn’t reconsider the more than
three billion assistance for Israel, - and even, if necessary it
scarifies American blood in wars against Muslim countries rival to
Israel. A typical fait accompli accepted by the USA legislation in
2015: the innocent sounding Customs Bill implies that "American
officials will be obliged to treat the settlements as part of Israel
in future trade negotiations. Eyal Press: When Made in Israel is
right abuse. 27.1,2015, )

Furthermore, in the present
version of the Zionist doctrine beyond the service of Israel's
expansion and the defense of particular interest of the Jewish
people worldwide, a broader aspiration could be read, namely to
construct a "wandering" mobile globalist world civilization
replacing, eclipsing the other existing ones (Ankerl 2000),
especially the Western.

(The World
Jewish Congress declared in 2001:" "JEWISH EXISTENCE THE
DIASPORA - OF FAR-FLUNG COMMUNITIES - HAS BEEN BASED FOR HUNDRED
YEARS ON GLOBALIZATION." GILAD ATZMAN SAID: FROM PROMISED LAND
TO PROMISED PLANET.)

In fact, the infiltration of Zionism
– based on the Talmud – into originally Christian Western
civilizational sphere is deeper than appear at first glance.[v]Since the gradual
secularization of the Western states – practically since the
Renaissance – the legal order lost progressively its Christian
moral foundation, the Christian Zionists opened the door largely to
the Talmud - to the legal doctrine, Halakha which
is offered to replace the Christian taught.[vi]

Concerning the Western applicability
of the Talmud H. Patrick Glenn, professor at McGill University
arrives to surprising suggestion. He wrote in the chapter entitled
“An universal Talmud?” (129ff) that the Western
philosophy of law lost its moral basis and the Talmudic law
could serve as an alternative “model or example”. You
can’t speak more explicitly[vii].

Politically, the gradual
subordination of the interests of the Western great powers to
Israel’s is an enigma. To reveal the Zionist strategy, the
means and ways of its realization would be the task of think-tanks
not corrupted by Zionist blackmail. We can emits the hypothesis that
in democratic systems (1) beyond the financing of think-tanks,
(2) the financing by the Zionist oligarchy the always more
expensive (re)election campaigns of pro-Zionist candidates of
both major parties is a crucial political operation. Finally (3) in
prolongation of the financing of the think-tanks and other similar
academic institutions , the Zionist oligarchy invest in mass media
and creates what we can call the Zionist establishment. This is used,
of course, for publicity in general but have a important political
dimension. The screening control of mainstream mass media censures
the communication between the elected power elite and the people. It
is especially effective in countries where the state itself is not in
possession of significant public media like the U.S.A.

To complete the image the frequent
surveys deform the so-called public opinion. The Zionist
pollsters try even replace the legal election results by their
arbitrary questionings. Polls are often used also to mobilize
the people against the opponents to the Zionist expansion. In this
undertaking the Islamic counterpart of Zionism, the Islamism
which promote the independence of the Muslim countries became
in a patchy manner a synonym of bloodthirsty terrorism. The deformed
image of the Muslim movement also encloses the democratic Islamist
movements like the Muslim Brotherhood. (As noted, it elected
government for example has been reversed in 2013 in Egypt by Western
consent.)

The conquest of Zionism
goes on the way to promote hostility between Christian and
Muslim peoples; envenoms their relation by suspicion and inspiring
the NATO with the image of Crusade. (It is to note that the reticence
of the Western public in relation to the Muslim geopolitical
sphere is secondarily facilitated by the massive Muslim immigration
to Europe (especially from the ancient European colonies).

The
recruiting of the Western powers for the Israeli battle against the
Arabo-muslim civilization sphere is the most perverse effect of
the Zionist dominance in the West.

It is to explain to the
Muslim world that the Western world doesn't is based on
Christian values anymore: in the European Union’s Constitution
it is intentionally avoided any reference to Christianity.
Consequently, in Europe not only Muslim symbols could be freely
radicalized, blasphemed, but also Christian ones. Characteristically,
institution as hetero-sexual character of the institution of wedding
or the respect for Christ are no more taboos[viii].
On the other hand, the new laws against anti-Semitism protect the
Zionist symbols. Indeed, the main task of the European Christianity
remains the sacrifice as historical expiation. The
peregrination of new generations to Auschwitz is obligatory as
that the Muslims' to Mecca. Serving the Zionism 's cause
became a day-to-day activity of Western officials, especially by
combative acts. (Military assistance to the state of Israel).
Lip service is not enough. The Muslim states, the Dar al-Islam also
should realize that the Christian West is more and more hostage of
the Zionist Power Constellation (ZPC) and consequently the
Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) doesn't have
reason to have conflict with the Christian world as such.

The general goal of the ZPC is to
weaken all states by any means which can limit Israel’s
expansive hegemony. This touches, of course, first Palestine, and
Israel other neighboring countries but also (Christian and
other) states where the Zionist lost influence like Russia.

Of
course, the destruction of Arab states which are around Israel (Iraq,
Syria, Libya) and are not submitted to Zionist influence (like Egypt
and Jordan are) and breaking them into small ethno-sectarian
enclaves is the first objective as Oded Yinon exposed already in 1982
(Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya: Yinon revanche? An panoramic chaos in the
Arab World. Strategic
Culture Foundation 25.8.2013. Israël
Shahak: Stratégie pour Israel dans les années 80.
Orientation[Kivnim]
no 14, 2.1982.)

A SHORT
OVERVIEW OF THE WORLD POLITICAL SITUATION

Since
the end of the Cold War the world is no more divided in two parts,
however it is not also under the unique power of the West any more.
The West as geopolitical entity is represented by the North-Atlantic
Alliance Organization. Since the European Union didn’t succeed
to form a state the Anglo-American United States
dominates it[ix].
The world largest state, the Russian Federation tries to reestablish
its independence.

Two other civilizations arrived to
construct states, which we can call civilization-states, China and
India. They unsurpassed political achievement is to establish
and maintain more than one milliard people in a sovereign state. They
can't be constraint any more to serve foreign interests. Worldwide
decisions can't be done violating their vial interest, even if - on
institutional level - the U.N.'s Security Council ignores yet India's
world power status.

The
crescent-shaped Arab-Muslim geopolitical sphere also includes more
than one milliard believers, which is called by Shahid
Alam Islamacate
(139, 217). "The
term ‘Islamdom’ will be immediately intelligible by
analogy with ‘Christendom’. ‘Islamdom’ is,
then, the society in which the Muslims and their faith are recognized
as prevalent and socially dominant,"( (Michel G. S. Hodgson: The
Venture of Islam. Volume 1. The Classical Age of Islam. 1977. Pages
58-59.).

However, the
(Arabo-)Muslim dominated sphere as such didn’t yet find a
proper international representation. Even if its public
presence become more and more visible, its cohesion is fragile and
fractured.

The
Western presentation of the Islamacate and its political expression,
the Islamism is deformed. The fundamental international political
fact is that centuries
no Islamacate
countries attacked Western state, but the Western powers
initiate repeatedly wars with dubious motives against one or
other of these countries, as well as for years occupied them.
However, these wars intending durable subjugation of the arabo-Musim
civilizational sphere can't be won. The war against Iraq and
Afghanistan produced big economic lost, and meanwhile the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization lost its virgin image, reputation to be
a regional defense organization. The CIA – as well
as the US defense department – received from president Obama
(however initiated in Islam) the mandate to follow the war
against the independent Arabo-Muslim sphere which are not
subordinated to the West to conduct a hidden war against Muslim
countries by armed drones, as well as by overturning – even
democratically elected governments like Egypt's in 2013.. The
West operates this war in the only Muslim in Somalia, Syria and
so on, over the local government’s head, - even in the only
Muslim land with nuclear power, Pakistan. (For example, in Western
powers installed in February 2017 Faramjo as president who lived in
the last 30 years in the U.S. and being double citizen travels with
American passport.)

For the
originally anti-Soviet NATO, tacitly, the main enemy became the
non subordinated Arab-Muslim world, despite the fact that no
objective analysis confirmed existing projects attacking Western
countries.

Iran
for example even if it tries to develop nuclear arms never made
declaration and manifested intention or made preparation to
invade Western countries. Iran is only opposed against the
expansion of Israel in occupied Palestine.

We can conclude that the Western
saber-rattling against the Arab-Muslim world doesn’t originate
from recognized Western interest. The Western world is not separated
from the Muslim by irreconcilable antagonistic interest. For this
very reason it would be fatal to concentrate the North Atlantic
power to holding the Muslim world at bay instead of developing with
it a fructuous good neighborly relation. Also it should be looked for
the power configuration which hinders the West to develop a
policy which would promote this peaceful cooperation based on
equality. Which is this power center which has an interest to
mobilize Western force to intimidate the Muslim world, and has
. as well, the necessary influence to compel the Western power to
execute this policy?

Since the everyday observation shows
that the nuclear-armed Zionist state of Israel - in the hearth of the
Arabo-Muslim world - follows a hegemonic and expansive policy,
disproportionate with it size, it has obviously a visceral interest
to mobilize the West against the Muslim world. On the other side, if
the West help militarily, economically, diplomatically Israel in this
undertaken without reserves, it could be expected that spontaneous
militant Muslim movement emerge against the West. Indeed, without the
Western submission to particular Israeli interest, the Muslim world
would not be eo ipsothe West's enemy. The so-called
Muslim terrorism against the West is the West's self-inflected wound.

In the West we can recognize
the Zionist power configuration (Patras)[x]as the Power center which presses the
West to neglect its own best interest, respectively subordinated it
to Israel’s - and to the World Zionism’s, even if
it is called by a code-name “neoconservative”[xi].

The present-day mobilization of the
West against the Arabo-Muslim geopolitical sphere originates in the
fact that this sphere - if it forms an united front - could be the
biggest hindrance to Israel’s expansionism and regional
hegemony. Meanwhile the West losses its force in this battle (Alam
139) and by so doing becomes weaker in the Chinese-Western
competition.

It also is necessary to define
western interest independently from that of Israel and
lay bare all maneuvers which deform the Western interest in order to
submit it to Israel's political actions.

It is a plausible hypothesis that the
overwhelming and growing Zionist influence in the Western
geopolitical sphere come mainly by the fact that the Zionist
Diaspora gives primary to Israel’s interest and on the
other hand, the Christian part of the political elite is
existentially exposed to the blackmail of the Zionist oligarchy. For
verifying these explications and to oppose this
illegitimate Zionist influence it is necessary to systematically
observe its functioning.

IN ORDER TO
ASSERT THE WESTERN OWN STRATEGICAL INTEREST IT IS NECESSARY TO CREATE
A ZIONISM OBSERVATORY (ZO)

We can
state that the declared objective of the world Zionist movement
is to create the state of Israel, and subsequently to serve the
interest of its government as well as broadly the Diaspora’s
interest (Herszlikowicz op. cit. 48ff). The general experience show
that since the second world war the Western powers – even if
they criticize in declarations the Israeli expansionary policy –
more and more help Israel diplomatically, militarily and
economically, even if this policy is not in accordance with the
West’s interest or even with its declared policy (e.g., against
the colonization of the West Bank)

If the political anomaly, absurdity
is true that a people of a dozen millions - represented by the
Zionism - enjoys a quasi-veto-right in relation to world most
influential state, the US and the NATO, the most powerful alliance,
this need an explication.

(Example
in the other text H 2 pages..)

It became a fact that the
world’s political situation –e specially in the West
could not be studied, evaluated without
studying the
world Zionist movement as an important political factor.

In contrast to this necessity the
Zionism as such became a kind of taboo in the contemporary
political studies. If somebody in elite circle touch the Zionist
influence, the cold silence appears, like if somebody speaks about
pornography. (The elephant is in the room, but the censorship
interdicts to realize this fact.) The various methods of silencing,
muzzling we will discuss later.

Indeed, it is essential for the West
to study the Zionist movement as factor in present-day politics. We
also find in the West already numerous think-tanks, academic
institutions which studies the relation of various actors of
world politics. But by examining these studies we can observe an
omertain the widely published and read
studies of standing, they neglect the issue to discuss the difference
and eventual contradiction between Israel’s and the
West’s interests. This issue is never studies in deep, if
evoked it is in a cursory manner. In fact, the Zionist premises in
tacitly accepted, that this contradiction is not possible. Indeed,
the contradiction between Western and Israeli interest is -
politically institutionally- inconceivable, since the Western
interest itself is defined by the influential think tank financed by
the Zionist oligarchy in the diaspora, while the Israeli interest
could be defined freely by the Israeli government. (The
multidimensional influence of the Zionist Diaspora guarantee the
epistemological censorship in key political research institutions as
well as on public forums.) The Zionist oligarch, Naim Saban's ("a
vocal supporter of Israel" [Maureen Down in INYT
6.12.2912]) in 1985
founded Center for Middle East Policy related to Brookings
Institution is a good example, as well as the Washington
Institute for Near East Policy founded in 2002.

(Example
one page)

Lets
enumerate some fundamental facts which make necessary a Zionism
Observatory for non-Zionist “research”.

The West puts Israel into a
privileged position as representative of world Jewish people:

- the
secularist Western concept require that Christian and Muslim
religious symbols to be forced back into the private sphere, while
the Jewish symbols are protected by laws against Anti-Semitism, and
Israel itself can remain an explicitly Jewish state.

- It is
accepted implicitly that Israel be the unique nuclear power is the
Middle East. We see that in the handle of the Iranian case (See also
Mearsheimer [35] for the memorandum of 6.5.2009 between Nixon
and Golda Meir and Kissinger’s note in 2007.)

- The UN
declares illegitimate and condemns the Israeli settlement policy in
Jerusalem and the other occupied territories. Israel doesn’t
respect these determinations (UNSC decision no 446 March22,1979 and
no 2334 Dec.30, 2016), while the West continue to back Israel
diplomatically, militarily and economically.

-Israel arrived to involve the Western powers
into an endless war against the Arabo-Muslim geopolitical sphere like
Iraq, Afghanistan. Despite the fact that

Western countries took the initiative to occupy
islamacate, Muslim countries, while no Muslim power occupies Western
country, the Zionist propaganda arrived to produce an image where the
self-defensive Muslim world appears as the aggressive part in the
conflict.

It should be explored which are the
cause of this staunch Western attitude to serve first of all
Israeli interest. Among the hypotheses figures the supposition that
the double citizens - especially the Zionist oligarchy -
infiltrated the Western political, media and academic elite as well
as blackmail the remaining non-Zionist part of it.

THE TASK OF ZIONISM OBSERVATORY
(ZO):

THE
OBJECTIVE STUDY OF ZIONIST MOVEMENT IN THE WORLD

The
task of Zionism Observatory (ZO) is to follow worldwide the
activities of the organizations, institutions, networks
which will representthe interest of the chosen
people. ZO observes
systematically the coordinated[xii]actions of the Zionist inspired
movements in interest of the state of Israel and its potential
citizens in the diaspora. How they work, operate in various part of
the world and in various levels of collective organization
(international ,state, NGO) for promoting its influence.

The ZO studies the Zionism not as a
spiritual movement as such but as a political one. The
historical past (e.g., holocaust) or the religiousness in so far is
considered that they contribute to the present and further political
influence of the Zionist movements. The object of the study is the
strategy, the power play of them worldwide. Its subject is the
self defined Jewish people.[xiii]By this representation of this
particular interest the Zionist movement became active factor
of contemporary history. In this perspective Israel itself
is the central symbol to define the Jewish political identity
as well a mean for increasing the Jewish People's worldwide
influence. For the Zionism as political Judaism – avoiding the
maze of ethnic and religious definitions -- article 437[576]
of Israel citizen law from 1952 define the belonging to the
Jewish people and nation. In short, Jews are all these
individuals who by entering in Israel and declaring the intention to
reside permanently in Israel and proving his Jewish origin canreceive the Israeli citizenship
directly.[xiv]

In the line to enforcing the biblical
continuityof the Jewry among others, the
Zionist Hassidim Isaac Perlman, called Eliezer Ben-Yehuda who
migrated to Palestine in 1881, "reinvented" the Hebrew
which was an non-spoken language during 1700 years. It became the
official language of Israel. (The "renaissance" of the
spoken Hebrew is also inspired by the Haskasa movement of XVIII and
XIX centuries. (IHT 6.8.2008)

In order to study the
movements for promoting the interest of the community of
the Jewish people we find many sources. For scientific investigations
numerous ones can be considered only as secondary source. Even by
simulating a balanced presentations the most sources are either
engaged Zionists’ work or Anti-Semitic pamphlet. All
these authors mix knowledge with propaganda. We find there selective
enumeration of facts, arbitrarily construed narratives. Is not
a exception that false facts are asserted, therefore these
publications loss their epistemological value.

The Western academic political
science is one-sidedly under Zionist oligarchical influence by
its gatekeepers, or at least under (self-)censorship. However, this
doesn’t mean that the studies of Western think-tanks are
monotonous. They cover all shades of Zionist strategical thinking.
Some argue about the opportunity for enlarging Israel’s
territory on biblical ground (Settler colonies as part of a
divine plan leading to the coming of the Messiah: "Tzipi
Hotovely, deputy foreign minister told the Israeli diplomatic corps
that they should use the Bible as a tool for telling the world
that the entire land between the Mediterranean Sea and
the Jordan River belong to the Jews INYT
26.5.2015.);
others more globalist Diaspora authors are only preoccupied by the
worldwide influence of the Zionism. (Tradition of Ahad Ha-am; Franck
85-6). Some accept completely the principle that the purpose
justifies the means, again others advise to operate within the
framework of international legal order.

(The Begin-Sadat Center Strategic
Studies of Ben-Ilan University published a paper written by Steven
R. David, a former adviser of CIA and US Defense Department. David
justifies legally and morally the targeted killing by Mossad and the
Shin Bet services by the Bible (undiscoverable in the classical
edition [Exodus 12:1]), by "the Jewish history and the history
of the state". Indeed during the British Mandate and also later
Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir, Ehud Barak, Golda Meir
ordered targeted killing. Ha'aretz/IHT9.12.2002.)

The variety
of strategies proposed for the Zionism gives the impression that
all variants of possible policies in a given situation have
been discussed. In reality, all these institutions are financed,
operated and popularized by the Zionists, therefore although numerous
policies came under consideration but only from one viewpoint: which
is the better solution for Israel.

(The forced research of biblical
reference is also used for colonial conquest of East Jerusalem. The
Elad - Ir David Foundation - as well as the archeologist Eilat Mazar
of Shaslom Foundation try to "discover" King David Palace
of 10th century BC which is mentioned in the book of Jeremiah. The
Ea. Ire David Foundation, commonly
known as Lead [Lead] (Hebrew:
אלע"ד‎‎,
an acronym for "אל
עיר דוד",
meaning "to the City of David") is a Jerusalem-based,[1]Israeli
association which aims is openly to strengthen the Jewish connection
to Jerusalem, create a Jewish majority (!) in Arab neighborhoods of
East Jerusalem
and renew the Jewish community in the City
of David, which is also part of the neighborhood of Silwan.[2]The foundation works to achieve its goals by tourism,
education, archaeological excavations and obtaining homes in the area
to establish a Jewish presence.[Wikipedia. S. Erlanger: King David's
fabled palace : Is this it? IHT 5.8.2005.][3

It is to note that, of course,
Zionist researcher has the full right to develop Zionist
strategy, if he states explicitly his approach. However, the ZO
doesn’t’ follow this interest and is not concerned the
internal debate of Zionists. ZO is concerned to detach Western
interest from Zionist ones. It will fulfill this narrow free research
space what remains between mainstream think-tanks engaged for Zionism
and racist Anti-Semitic workshops.

Concerning
this later Learned Elders of Zion (World Conquest
Through World Jewish Government) an objectless debate
developed. This text has been conceived in Russian. In 1921
Henry Ford financed its English translation and Dearborn
Independent published it and sold half million
copies. It describes an so-called Jewish world conspiracy. The
debate around this text is mainly historical. It questions its
origin. The ZO is devoted to the politics of present time and doesn’t
participate in this discussion. (In a certain sense the Zionists
themselves maintain the Protocols in the actuality since they
argue longum et latum against its authenticity.
Professor Pierre-André Taguieff - of Russian-polish origin, -
director in the French FNRS group around the so-called The
Protocols of the engages himself in a preface to the Protocols
French edition (Berg Fayard, 2004) to prove its forgery. In order to
assure about its impartiality, he negates his Jewish origin. On the
other hand, Taguieff is the front-line flightier of the
tendency to assimilate to anti-Semitism all anti-Zionist critics of
Israel in order to silence them even by means of penal
procedures. The same « idea » inspires Robert
E. Wistrich [Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism. Jewish Political
Studies Review. 2004.6, 3-4]. For the ZO it is useless to debate
that the Protocols is an authentic document or an apocryphal one: the
relevant question is either the observable actions of Zionist
movement in present time meets the description of found in the
Protocols. Henry Ford declared in February 1921 in the
New York World : « The only statement I care to
make about the Protocols is that they fit in with what is going
on ». (Henry Ford : The International Jew: the
World’s Foremost Problem 1920-27, This is published by Theodore
Fritch . )

On
the other hand, a similar debate developed for years until
today about the "authenticity", official nature of
Oded Yinon plan of 1982 (Kivnim [Orientations] no 14, February
1982) concerning the Zionist policy to parcel the large Arab state in
Israel's neighborhood into small ethno-sectarian protectorates.
Were the Yinon-document an official one or not, the Zionists'
inspired US policy by destroying Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, now
the state of Syria - and by its hostility to Iran - shows that the
plan is in process of implementation.

Independently
from the Protocols Herzl defined the objective of the World Zionist
Movement in 1897 in Basle to increase the influence of
the Jewish people world-wide. Never denied this any Zionist movement
since.

Thus the ZO concentrates on the present
functioning of the Zionist movement in all its aspects
(objectives, way and means, results). Presently it doesn’t seem
that there are a “Jewish conspiracy” in the world.
Indeed, the Zionist movement is absolutely open to the public it is
rather very loud in the mass media. However, the extremely
influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)
doesn’t publish its list of directors, -as doesn’t do the
Freemason movement.

(/Wikipedia 14/ Michael
Massing: The Israel Lobby. The Nation. June 10,2002.
Blackout about Zionist blackmail. Jeffrey Goldberg in The New
Yorker (Real Insidness. July 4, 2005.: “ a lobby is like a
night flower: it thrives in the dark and dies in the sun.”)

The AIPAC will for any
price avoid that it should be registered by the Department of Justice
in conformity with the Foreign Agents Registration Act. In fact the
organization avoid that since it is financed by the American Zionist
oligarchy.

As we already noted the Zionist world
movement tries to prevent and hinder, silence by all mains any work
which tries to define the Western interest independently or even in
contradiction with the Israel’s. This censorship is
fundamental since it hinders Western opinion to follow and
recognize its own interest. The Zionist censorship is mainly realized
by the self-censorship of the most influential Western institutions.
The researchers use quasi exclusively sources which are agreed as
“respected” by the Zionists (Mearsheimer 113-5, 139). The
publication of Mearsheimer and S. M. Walt's famous manuscript about
he "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy has been hindered 5
years (VII-IX) (Unfortunately, this work has no new edition with new
data and consideration since 2005.) Institutions which doesn’t
follow the line are brand marked as “anti-Semitic”
with reference to the Nazism. This censorship also has a brutal form,
since works which are qualified an anti-Semitic can cause penal
pursuit.

(A very good example is Roger Garaudy’s –
who died in 2012. He wrotethe book Les mythes
fondateurs de la politique israélienne.[1996,SamiszdatParis, ISBN
2-951-000-5]and was penalty persecuted.)
Near all European legislations have an article which allows this
persecution. In Switzerland it is the article 261bis in the penal
code.

The Zionist censorship uses mostly morerefined means than the Christian
Middle Ages and the Soviet regime used. One of this is that only
ethnically engaged Jews can criticize Israel’s policy or
handling Western interest independently from Israel’s one.
without risking the blame to be an anti-Semite. If this loyalty
control is not working, the Zionist press speaks about
“irrational Israel hatred, or self-hatred Jews”. (C.
Franck mentions Karl Marx. 62.) But the critics behave
mostly as the conservative Jew, Richard Goldstone, South-Africa judge
did: In 2011 under the pressure of his coreligionists he recanted
large part of his UNO report about Israel misdeeds in
Gaza in 2008-2009. (E. Bronner and Israel Kershner: Inquiry chief
retracts key finding of Gaza report. IHT 4.4.2011.)

His
crime against his tribe became venial. And as the prodigal son
has been forgiven by the Zionists.

Before we can develop the issue how the
Zionist movement make good its interest

-in the
Western political sphere – namely in the U.S. legislation
mainly by the AIPAC and in the executive branch by the Conference
of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations (CPMJO)
– as well as

-in the public
opinion by the predominance in the mass media,

we
should show succinctly which obstacle hinders the simple recognition
of the Western interest independently from the Israeli’s.

The Zionist censorship in the
intellectual life exercises by 3 means:

1.
It hinders the financing of think-tank which operate
exclusively by non-Israelis;

2.
if these think-tanks exist from Arab financial source, the Zionist
movement hinder the diffusion of the research results calling them
"biased",

3.
all approaches which are critical to the Zionism receive the
anti-Semitic or even the Nazism anathema,

4.
if all these means seem insufficient thanks to the new post-war
legislation the authors could be persecuted as anti-Semite by the
penal code, viz., the modern inquisition.

The censorship concerns fundamentally
the interdiction of evoking the basic issue:

The
unconditional support for Israel is for the Western
geopolitical sphere a major burden which hinders a peaceful and
fructuous cooperation with the Arabo-Muslim civilization.

The material which should be studied by
the CO are 2 sorts:

-declaration
of influential politicians,

-material
facts: measures, financial, military and diplomatic actions (e.g.,
exercise of veto right in the UNSC).

The comparison of these two levels of
data is one of the method applied by the ZO because this show
clearly the behind the scene machinations of the Zionist movement.

The Zionist inspired arbitrary
presentation, narrative of the international series of event should
be lay bar in order to show the proper Western strategical interest
independently from Israel’s.

THE POLITICAL
DEFINITION OF THE IDENTITY OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE AND THE
REPRESENTATION OF ITS INTEREST:

(THE WORLD
CORPORATION OF ZIONIST APPARATUS: The Israeli democracy
and the diaspora’s established oligarchic organizations)

Recall that
the Zionism Observatory (ZO) will not study, analyze, dissect the
Zionism for its own sake. Our concern (ZO) is to handle the
Zionism as an actor in the world policy, to reply the questions: in
which respect, in which directions and in which measures can
the Zionist movement influence the West’s own interest
recognition, its implementation and subordinate them to the
Zionist own interest (Alam 192-3). Indeed, ZO
has an interest in the Israeli policy only insofar that Israel
realizes its Chauvinistic policy in so fare that the oligarchic
Zionist diaspora can subordinate the Western powers' action to the
Zionist goals. Orlando Patterson of Harvard wrote about Ethnic
Chauvinism (NYC, Stein and Day, 1977) and political parochialism.

As a matter of fact, in the Western
political life there are political actors which have not public
legal status but these “civil” organizations can
efficiently act without that. Among these today the Zionist movement
appears eminently to be the most successful. This organization
realized to constitute a national state for the Chosen People
in West Asian, in the middle of the Arabo-Muslim world (Alam 9, 223
[25-6]).

With the
realization of Israel on the Promised Land[xv]the Zionist movement accomplished its
declared historical mission. The land is secured by the most
modern arms delivered by the U.S.A.

The state of Israel is the
determinant for belonging to the Jewish people. The Israeli law of
citizenship of 1952 (437/576) defines the criteria. As politicalactor, this definition is more
fundamental and comprehensive than to be an observant or nonobservant
Jew. On the other side, this definition of the Jewish people by a
fundamental

public law
saves the ZO from the trouble to lose itself in the daedal of the
ethnic and religious definition of the Chosen People.

Avraham Burg past president of the
Knesset, - and past provisory president of the state itself , - of
the Jewish Agency and of the World Zionist Organization (which didn't
hinder to receive also in 2004 the French citizenship) in his book
(The Holocaust is Over:
We must Rise from its Ashes.
MacMillan, New York, 2008; IHT,August 6, 2012,,8) said that “today,
the meaning of ‘ Jewish’ in Israel is mainly ethnic
and religious” and he follows: “we never tried to
separate the synagogue and the state”. In issues of
personal rights – like wedding – the Orthodox Jewish
tribunal has competence. However, Burg would prefer to call Israel
“the State of Jews” than Jewish state (Burg
2.o.Wikipedia).
His definition is in full coincidence with our position to define the
Jewish people represented by the Zionists as the set of people having
the potential (the possibility) to be automatically
a citizen of Israel
(the law of return from 5 July 1950).[xvi]For and by the Zionists the state
of Israelbecame
the determinant of the Jewish People as political entity which they
will represent as well as its all-inclusive symbol. According the
Israeli law you are Jews by birth, viz. by matrilineal lineage
or by a rigorous Orthodox conversion process. ("'Israeliness' is
the new collective sense of Jewishness. Samuel Rosner of The Jewish
People Policy Institute quotes the orthodox president of
Israel, Reuven Rivlin. NYTJune 12.2015.) On the other side,
according to the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel 50
laws discriminate against Arabs. This exclusion completes the large
inclusiveness of Israel for the Jewish people on the whole world.

Incontestably
the basic aim of the Zionist movement was the Aliyah,the migration to the Eretz Israel,
the colonization of Palestine. (Today, there are a strong
expatriation movement from Israel. Only in Nevada - esp. in Las Vegas
- live 10.000 Israeli expatriates.)

From
the beginning the state of Israel defined by the UN in 1948 and 1967
and accepted by the world community doesn't correspond with Israel
delimited by Zionists. Zionismas
the national movement of the Jewish people supports the
re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as
so-called historic Land of Israel, including the whole
Palestine, Canaan or the Holy Land.This
implies already an expansive regional policy which is not agreed by
the world community (as confirmed implicitly the UNCI decision of
December 2016.)

After
the creation of Israel the goals of Zionism had been
reformulated but the maintenance in the center of Jewish conscience
the state of Israel remains a foundation of this movement. The sort
of the Jewish people left in the Diaspore also
remains essential preoccupation (Franck 85). The prophetic
vision of a triumphal Israel should help the Jewish education and
culture. The Zionist movement flights for the rights of
the Jews everywhere, but also requires to promote in their homeland
toinfluence
the respective government in favor of Israel. The post-Israel
Zionist movement, on one side, extends the protection of the all
co-religionists - the Diaspora had originally a provisory
status in the Zionism! -
in the world, and on the other side, it mobilizes this
population as Israeli patriots.

The
fundamental trouble of the Zionist movement is the fact that this
movement attributes to these double citizens in their
native land a “plant” role who serves Israel’s
interest. The Zionism by not distinguishing between Jews in Israel
and elsewhere, by representing the latters too, it expect,
consequently that the Diaspora behave like potential Israeli
citizen.[xvii]This Zionist
requirement becomes especially unacceptable if members of the
Diaspora reach situation where they become representativeor public
functionary of their home countries. On one side, loyalty breach
could be produced in the homelands, and on the other side
anti-Semitic tendencies can spread.

By
representing all Jews as potential Israeli citizen the Zionist
movements bring the wandering Jew in a contradictory situation which
are demonstrated by the American spying cases (Jonathan Pollard
etc.).

(Adams Elliott: Faith or Fear in a Christian
America. New York, Simon, 1997, 181: “Jews… are to
stand apart from the nation in which they live. It is a very nature
of being Jewish to be part- except in Israel (!) – from
the rest of the population.” [Mearsheimer 167]

The Zionist association federates the Jewish interest
in the world. See since 1978 Jerusalem Center for Public Affair’s
Center for Jewish Community Studies and the Jerusalem Institute for
Federal Studies.)

According to Glenn (120) the modern rationalist
reformist and the Concentration of conservative Talmudist Jews
opposing to the Orthodox rabbinate in Israel, could put in danger the
unity of the Jewish people. Indeed, the Hadassah and Halakha are
god-fearing people.

After the foundation of Israel in West-Asia in
1948 the Zionist movements are living on borrowed time (like the NATO
after 1990, when with the dissolution of the Soviet Union
survived its defensive mission). Israel territorial integrity was
assured, but as unique nuclear power in the region, its donating
intention made the conflicts in the region permanent.

Indeed, on the annexation
of Golan high is the model for the West Bank. Israel expulsed 800.000
Druze and Bedouin from the High and installed 34 Israeli colonies
and created a city too. In December 1981 Golan has also been legally
incorporated in Israel. (Mearsheimer 267 and Alam 195, 218.) Israel
will have the occupied territories without its autochthon population.

Unfortunately for the Christians because the
disproportion between the disproportion between the Arabo-Muslim and
Jewish populations for realizing its hegemonic policy the Zionists
should ask the Christian population's help. (All unilateral and
unprecedented sacrifices for Israel are by the neo-conservative
"crusaders".)

The main strategical ideas of Zionist to provide
this unilateral help is on one side

(a) to present Israel's expansion as service for
the Christians, and on the other side,

(b) the Zionists try to divide the Arabo-Muslim
sphere utmost, (Sunnites against Sheets, Arabs against
non-Arab-Muslims, converted against inborn).

The Zionists try to convince the Christians about
this coincidence of interests or they engage them by blackmail to
involve them in a conflict with the arabo-muslim geopolitical sphere.
For realizing this strategy it is important that the Zionist double
citizens are not exposed as a traitor in his homeland.

This strategy is elaborated by institutions which
function as communication vessels

between Israel and Western institutions. One of
the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) and the Shalom
Center in Israel. (Mearsheimer 50,371[7]) A typical agent of these
bridge think tank is Andrew J. Tobler who studied on the
American University in Cairo and work now parallel in WINEP,
International Crisis Group and the Oxford Business Group (OBG).

The International Center for Study of
Radicalization was founded in 2008 is related to the King's College
of London University but also to the Interdisciplinary Center
Herzliya near to Tel Aviv. (Of course, this centers don't study
Avigdor Lieberman's radicalization.)

The "communicating tubes" relate not
only the institutes devoted to strategic studies but the whole
establishment - elite and oligarchy - of the Zionist world
movement. (in the media for example is not seldom to find the name in
the Wall Street Journal and Jerusalem Post. E.g. Bret Stephen.

"Stanley Fischer ...U.S. banker
received Israeli citizenship in the morning and was sworn in as the
governor of Israel's Central Bank several hours later." IHT
2.5.2005.)

(c) Since the foundation of Israel in 1948 the
Zionists enlarged their mission not only to (re)create the great
biblical Israel, but to follow a goal what we can call globalist
pan-Zionist movement in service of the world potential Israeli
citizen, the world Jewish people.

This new strategy accept that a large part of the
diaspora will not settle in Israel, but the World Zionist
Organization and its associate institutions expect that this
permanent diaspora doesn't loose its banter to Israel.

The Zionist strategists accepted even
that some diaspora serve better Israel in his home country than as a
settler in Israel. (Besides presently for Russia more Jews
migrate to the "odious" Germany than to Israel.)

The representation of the Jewish people in Israel
they are normal democratic channels - including the settlers outside
Israel - the representation of the diaspora there are myriad
competing organizations. In the USA there are more than 80
(Mearsheimer 116), Legally only the Halakha of the Talmud could
unify them. The representation of global Jewish interest based on the
individual right is not happened. Often the polls replace it.
(Mearsheimer 189). Peter Beinard men's that the democracy is lacking
in the Zionist organizations [P. Beinard: The
Crisis of Zionism. MacMillan, New York,
2012, IHT 14.2.2012 Roger Cohen].
Roger Cohen and other liberal Zionist claims that other Zionist
organizations which speak in name of the Jewish People like Abraham
Foxman's Anti-Defamation League, - following the combative
Jabotinsky line - the Zionist Organization of America, the AIPAC, the
Jewish Committee neglect Arnold Jacob Wolf J-Street line or the
Union of Concerned Zionists (Mearsheimer 113,352-3).

The Zionist organizations are activist. According
to Goldberg (162) since 1967 in these organizations the principles of
equality, tolerance and social justice are replaced by the culture of
loyalty to Israel and the engagement against the enemy of Israel. The
degree of engagement became the criteria for membership in committee
etc. This meets well the requirement of efficiency in the
Zionist worldview.

The power delegation emanate from Israel's
government, the member's influence and his generosity.

George Soros is one of this oligarch who used 8
billion dollars to influence public and cultural life in 60 countries
by his single donor enterprise, the Open Society Foundation. He
finances for his son, Alex Soros Foundation which finances Bend
the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice. [Alex Williams: Trial and
errors of living with the family name. IHT2012.7.24.]

Soros original name was Schwartz (Kaufman Michael T.:
Soros: The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire. Knopf,
IHT 2002.3.27.). in 1947 he emigrated from Hungary to England.
Tina Rosenberg calls him to be :“a devoted provocateur and
accidental humanitarian”. (Tina Rosenberg: Some U.S. Charities
Build Little State Department. IHT, 2001.8.14.) Soros
monopolizes the term Open for himself. I could be associated
with the word Society, Institute or Foundation. The director are
Israelites. (The president of Open Society Institute - since
2001.8.14 - is Aryeh Neier.)

Thomas L. Friedman describes the Zionist influence
by money: “Add on top that, the increasing
role of money in U.S. politics and the importance of single
donors who can write mega checks to ‘super PAC’ –
and the fact that the main Israel lobby AIPAC, has made
itself the feared(!) arbiter of which lawmakers are
‘pro’ and which are ‘anti-Israel’, and,
therefore, who should or not be financed“)

Mearsheimer
171-173] The editor of WSJ R. Bartley wrote: “Shamir,
Sharon, Bibi - whatever those guy want is pretty much fine with
me.” Martin Peretz the editor of New Republic admits: “I
am in love with the state of Israel.”

It is the American
Zionist oligarchy which pushed the second Iraqi war and it will since
12013 to bombard Syria and Iran, Israel's rivals.( [Mearsheimer 243].
)

In order to follow the
Zionist oligarchy general Wesley Clark declared: “there is so
much pressure being channeled from New York money people
to the office seekers.” M. Iglesias wrote that Everything Clark
said is true. What’s more, everybody knows it’s
true.” (Mearsheimer 302, 232 352-3.)

The only democratic procedure existing within the
diaspora in America it is within the Conference of Presidents of
Majors American Jewish Organizations (CPMJO) where the organization
with more than five hundred members has one vote. In fact, in the
decision procedure the most wealthy and engaged organizations
have more weight. (Mearsheimer 127,397/58) as well as Goldberg (60,
201, 102, 103) underlined how the oligarchical part of the American
Jewish population has more and more the upper hand. (According to
Goldberg [102, 103] between 1916 and 1917 on the Paris peace
conference the American Jewish Congress' Committee "deputized
themselves" to order to make a democratic image.

While the AIPAC is concentrated on the presence of
the Zionists in the elected part
of the state body, the CPMJO is to place Zionists in the key position
of the executivebranch.

A typical case of the infiltration on level of
international organization is the American delegation of the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

On the UN Racism conference in Durban, South
Africa in 2001, the Us delegation Elliott Abrams the US National
Council senor director for democracy and human rights, and(!) the
White House contact for Jewish groups and David Harris, the executive
director of the American Jewish Committee (IHT, 6-9-2001, 6).

In 2014 after the the invasion of Gaza by
Israel increased the anti-Zionism in Europe. The American delegation
in Berlin (14.11.2014 NYT) included behind Samantha Power
Abraham H. Foxman director of ADL and Rabbi Andrew Baker
"personal representative for combating anti-Semitism"
(?)- Israel boycott and criticism is immediately assimilated
and punished as anti-Semitism. Meanwhile the EU asked Palestine to
not brig the case of Gaza-invasion before the International Criminal
Court as Navi Pillay ancient Un High Commissioner for Human Rights
(11.2014 NYT), what means doing notion to hinder Israel's barbaric
behavior.

The CPMJO as the great coalition of the Zionist
organizations will

- represent the interest of the organized American
Jewish people, meanwhile

- defend the enforce the safety and dignity of
the Jewish people in the whole world

- occupy on issues which cause indignation for the
American Jewish community.

- CPMJO also looks for that the interest of Israel
find a hearing in the circle of the decision makers, opinion
former and within the public at large.

- The means for realizing these goals to forming and
reinforcing a special relation between Israel and the USA.

According the chart of the CPMJO is word by word

“strengthening
and fostering the special US-Israel relationship;

ensuring that Israel’s interests are
heard and understood by policy makers, opinion molders and the
American public;

“addressing critical foreign policy
issues that impact the American Jewish community; representing the
interests of organized (!) American Jewry; protecting and enhancing
the security and dignity of Jews around the world.”

It is clear as crystal day the circle of defended
people, the defended interest as well as the means used even if the
detail influencing procedure is not exposed. But it is well-known to
hidden the "influence-peddling" the financial contribution
to decision-maker doesn't come from AIPAC or CPMJO directly
but these organizations incite their
wealthy member to act individually (e.g. Naim Saban for Mrs.
Clinton, Adelson for Trump). Indeed, AIPAC can't be a
"Pac" and can't do "linked donation" (Mearshaimer
155, 404[17, 20]-

The actions od this organizations are often
inspired directly by the Israeli ambassador. During the Johnson
administration, for example, the Israeli ambassador encouraged these
organizations that their members write numerous protest letters
to the president in styles. (Mearsheimer 121-2).

They have also so-called emergency actions. In
2010 Adelson's Shalom Center in Jerusalem founded the Emergency
Committee for Israel (ECI) in order to counterbalance Obama
tendency to condemn the settlement policy on the West Bank. Among the
responsible we find Daniel Loeb, William Kristol, Rachel and Elliott
Adams. They try to recruit neoconservative Christians like Garr Bauer
who was a Republican presidential candidate financed by the Zionists.

In these maneuvers it is necessary to see
that the discussion not around peace or justice but, what is better
to increase Israel's influence, i.e. to see in this beauty contest
which is the pro-Israeli wing of the pro-Israeli community. In the
competion between Republicans and Democrats in foreign policy. In
this respect, not strictly the Israel as state is on stake but
as we see in the CPMAJO objectives this prioritizing for Israel
extend to the relations with allcountries in the world. They will be judged which
relation has to Israel and the country's Zionist organizations. Not
only Muslim countries came on this manner on the black list. It is
among them Venezuela as well Russia since the elimination of
the Hrokovsky-Gusman click.

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) is
a "normative" organization to show what are the (political)
obligations of the American Jews. It is simply the support of
Israel's policy. It is Israel's ambassador who determines that cause
and the strategy to follow. (Mearsheimer 121-2, 123-4),

In the spirit of
first loyalty the American Jews should not criticize Israel in
public. Organizations which have the tendency to criticize Israel's
policy before their home country's organ can't be member organization
of the CPOMAJO. Mearsheimer mentions the case of Edgar
Bronfman Sr.'s World Jewish Congress (124). See also Maersheimer
115-6. Robert H Trice: Domestic Interest Groups and the
Arab-Israeli Conflict. In: E. Saïd: Ethnicity
and U.S. Foreign Policy.121-.2.)

The leaders of Zionist
organizations criticizing Israel are often exposed to personal attack
in pamphlets etc. Under pressure of ostracism some organization
retract themselves, go to Canossa or simply are obliged to dissolve
themselves.(Maersheimer 125, 397 [51]).

The most actors of international public life
have a standardized organizational and institutional system. In the
case of Zionist organizations as nongovernmental organization -
called by James Petras (J. Petras: Zionism,
Militarismand theDeclineof US Power.Clarity Press, Atlanta, 2008) Zionist
Power Configuration (ZPC) we can't see a central organ. These under
various national flags masked organizations have not interest to
exhibit its structure. According to strategic interest they also
change often their denomination. The main directives comes from the
Israeli government; however because the rich American diaspora the
power distribution is diffuse. Indeed, Tel Aviv should share the
power with the Zionist oligarch of New York - Washington axe (even
BosWash including the intellectually influential Charles River
Zionists).

According to Goldberg (403, 207, XIII-XIV) in the
USA 3 organizations are the top. The American Jewish Committee with
30.000 mostly wealthy members, the American Jewish Congress and the
Anti-Defamation League (ADL). The Committee has been founded in 1906
by a self-appointed German Jewish social elite. Goldberg 101-3). The
It has been founded in 1913 and is nominally affiliated to the
B'nai B'rth (Children of Covenant). It is in fact an association of
reformist rabbis. The Simon Wiesenthal Center today is occupied with
tracing of Nazi graybeards. These two last organizations are
the Zionism inquisition police. It look in fact for organizations
which criticize Israel.

By the censorship the criticism of Israel's policy
diminished on the American campuses (Mearsheimer 183, 232, 302).

As mentioned the non transparence of the various
Zionist organization also artificially created using the chaos of
western non-government organizations as a Golden Eden. Within the
Zionist Power Configuration, we find organization which are related
to the Israeli army, the department of finance as well as various
rabbinic organization. These later by supporting Israel's policy
expose themselves to attack on the Jewish faith. This engagement of
the Israelite religion is also shown by the oration of Israeli prime
minister in synagogues. Dove Lipmann, previously American
citizen became member of Knesset told that “the
prayer for Israeli soldiers is commonly said in synagogues
worldwide..(!)” (Jodi Rudoren: A rabbi’s quest to
‘equalize the burden”. IHT2013.2.9). This
attitude of Israelite religious authority is a cause that the
anti-Zionism becomes an anti-Semitic color. It is to recall that in
Israel the Orthodox Jews and their religion have a special status
inscribed in various laws. Rituals such as marriage and burial must
(!) be performed under Orthodox regulation. /Contemporary
Sociology,March 12, 180/. (Nachman
Ben-Yehuda: Theocratic Democracy: The
Social Construction of Religious and Secular Extremism.Oxford UP, 2010.)

As exposed the various Zionist organizations have
specific targets to increase their influence. The AIPAC "checks"
the elective process, the CPMAJO target is the executive power. In
the executive power the Defiance department for its assistance to
Israel and the foreign Affairs Department for the diplomatic cover of
Israel action, - e.g. US representative in the UNSC. Since 2001, the
so-called war against terrorism the Zionists show for an increased
influence in the Department of Treasury. They tries to control the
respect of Iran's boycott but practically all money movement in the
dollar zone with Muslim countries. In 2013 under David S Cohen's the
Office of Terrorism and Finance Intelligence control with 700
collaborators the international financial flows. There are also an
Office of Foreign Assets Control. They exert regularly influence on
western banks. These office is practically under Zionist control with
access to information for MOSAD. If the Zionists are not satisfied by
the control Robert Einhorn from Brookings Institution
exerts a pressure on the US authorities.

(The financial controller of New York,
Benjamin Lawsky also exerts a pressure on the US Department of
Treasury See "The money flows to Iran: New York’s
bank regulator takes the lead in investigating the
practices of a British bank IHT 2012.8.15. and U.S.
looking into banks’ lapses in tracking cash. IHT 2012.9.17.)

In the worldwide (!) secrete "anti-terrorist"
killings by drone the cooperation between CIA and Mossad is high.
MOSAD is here the teacher. These US activities are only controlled by
the Senate Intelligence Committee. In 2013 Dianna Feinstein was its
president (IHT 8.2.2013, p. 5,6. 2013.2.7 p.5).

In an overview, we can say that the seed of the
Zionist Power Constellation was the Rothschild oligarchy, the Belfour
declaration of 1917 promising the constitution of Israel is addressed
to Walter Rothschild, the president of the Zionist Federation.
In present time the mentioned oligarchical American Zionist structure
is the model for the worldwide Zionist organizations. (The Zionist
Organization of America exists since 1897.) Beyond their proper
internal organization they align, adhere to the political world
structure. There are Zionist organizations on all levels; local,
national and even for example especially for the European Union.
(E.g.: CRIF, Conseil representaif des institutions
juives de France is a copy of the American CPMAJO.) It is
to note that in its globalist universal aspiration since 2013 the ZPC
tries to find influence with the ONU. This is facilitated by the fact
that Israel is in the "West European and others"
geographical group.

It is clear that all alignment of Zionist
organizations with the national denomination is a tactical concession
to the existing world since - except the Jewish identity - the
Zionist mission is a cosmopolitan world organization without borders
accessible for intrusion (Alam 103, 222[8], 229[32], 238-9[2].

The ZPC also sticks to various political parties
as well as all kind of specialized organization on one side to learn
how they can serve Zionist interest, and other side, how can present
Zionist aspiration under the name of these organizations. In order to
present Zionist interest under cover-name educational, human watch
(Freedom House in New York) and especially non-Israelite religious
institutions are very useful (Goldberg 50, Mearsheimer 116). The
so-called UN Watch organization is directed since 2000 by the
Jewish-Canadian Hillil C. Neuer. Israel’s
Ma’arivnewspaper named
him to its list of the “Top 100 Most Influential Jewish People
in the World". Neuer also cooperates with Adelson' Shalom Center
which tries to limit the right of non-Jewish inhabitants of Israel.
The so called Freedom House in New York presided by David J. Kramer
and partly financed by Soros tried to promote the Zionist candidate
for Russian presidency Mikhail B, Khodorkovsky assisted by the
Zionist Leon Aron an Russian émigré in the
American Enterprise Institute (3.10.2014 NYT).

Since the interest
for the persecution of Jews during the Second World War diminished,
the Zionist movements look for universal denomination for maintaining
interest for this cause. In 1993 in Los Angeles a Museum of Tolerance
opened. We learn that it "is operated by the Simon Wiesenthal
Center" which calls itself a "global human right
organization whose research focuses on the Holocaust narrative".
In order to use it for the promotion of Zionism in general, the
Center will opened a second one in 2003 in New York City. Since there
are already the Yad Vashein, the World Holocaust Remembrance Center
it will "focus on the 3.500 year history of the Jewish people".
It will be interesting to see will integrate this museum the
tolerance concerning the state of Palestine.

Since 2000 there exists the so-called
Honest Reporting organization which is registered as a charity
organization in Skokie, ill. As such it is a tax-free organization,
In fact, its editorial board is in Jerusalem. It is a witch-hunter
Zionist institution in order to silencing all criticism of
Israel ( M. Suchov: Values Identity, and Israel Advocacy. In: Foreign
Policy Analysis. 7. 2011, 372[31]).

For influencing the
Christian public opinion it is much more efficient if the mass media
present the Israeli interest in name of Christian Council on
Palestine - founded by Christian Tillich already in 1942 -.
then by a overtly Zionist organization. (Alam 134-5). One of these
organization is the Christian United for Israel of John Hagee
(Mearsheimer 180, 132ff. Michel Massing: the Israeli Lobby., June
2002, The Nation)
and other protestant movements aliments the illusion that they will
convert the Israelite to the "judoe-christianism". In
reality, these organizations often have not adherents, it is a
syndicate of orators who preach for the West Bank settlers.

For identifying the true nature of the pro-Zionist
organizations it is necessary to identify the names figuring in the
directorate and the financing source (as well as number of
contributing members). It is not an exception that the same Zionist
group appear under different denomination. That allows that a
petition is underwrote by more than one organization. These societies
make demonstration on different days in order that the same person
can participates in many. This "masked ball" is a preferred
method of the mass media to promote various causes. The founder
of Zionist World Organization Benjamin Zelev (Theodor) Herzl as
himself journalist.

THE ZIONIST SUBJECTIVE IDENTITY:

"COSMOPOLITAN IN HIS (NATIVE)
HOMELAND AND PATRIOT IN ISRAEL"

In the modern times the Jewish people
lived either dispersed or in enclaves - having also often the
tendency to migration- and an image developed according to which it
hold more on the transnational solidarity within its own ranks than
to be a patriot. It is called this problematic the "Jewish
issue" or by the apologetic of Zionism the anti-Semitic
prejudice. Our concern is a new one, corresponding to the situation
after 1948. Indeed, in this year the Zionist movement reached
its goal, the Jewish state - or as the former president reformulated
"the State of Jews" (June 2007 in Haaretz) - has
been established, and therefore the issue of patriotism appears in a
new context. We study which attitude the Zionism requires now from
the Jewish people. We doesn't study in which proportion of of the
Jewish people follows the Zionist consign, only in the rank of its
prominent representatives within the Western societies.

We can evoke as a paradigmatic case how the
religious identity and the adherence to Israel's cause could be
confused across young and sportive associations. The movement Maccabi
has been founded in 1929. Today it exists in London the Maccabi Lions
football-club. Only Jew can play in this club and its jersey bears
the star of David present in Israel's flag. And the Israeli military
operation in 1948 had also as name Maccabi.

The Zionism defines the members of the Jewish
people as eo ipso potential citizens of Israel. Indeed, the first
expectation of Zionism was the immigration of all Jews to Israel at
short run. The natural consequence would be that the potential
immigrant look first for Israel interest and the Jews loose the blame
to be unpatriotic cosmopolitan: only their new patriotism
would concern Israel and not their native land.

The new problem is produced, namely the integral
migration is not produced and now the diaspora is not only
unpatriotic cosmopolitan in his native land but manifest solidarity
with an other state, the state of
Israel. Of course, if this person will
continue to represent politically his homeland, it could be censured
without anti-Semitic prejudice.

The paradox expressed in the title of this chapter
find its curious resolution if New York's coryphaeus of
cosmopolitanism are not systematically against all
kindsof nationalism. Indeed, according
the Zionism, the Jewish People is unique and has an exceptional
universal mission. For this reason it can give full vent to the
expression of its national identity defined by the Zionism (Roger
Cohen in IHT 16.10.2009. S. Alam: Israeli
Exceptionalism.op cit, p.47). In
practical term the Israeli authors reveal only their deep conviction
about nationalism, if they express their opinion about the
irredentism of the settlers of the West Bank in Palestine. part of
the Promised Land.

The problem became critical if the diaspora in
general will not emigrate to Israel - with reverse migration - and
stay in the homeland as double citizen, since the Zionism requires
that first loyalty goes to Israel and the Jewish people in general
(Mearsheimer 146, 402). During the last decades in the Western
representative democracies the problem deepened by the fact that the
People of Zionist orientation increased its participation in the
decision making political elite in all three political branches
(namely legislative, executive and judiciary) with strong support of
the media. Indeed, the Zionist Observatory has the task to check the
consequence of this situation in relation to the representation of
the Western interest.

We already mentioned how the judge Richard
Goldstone respected the obligation which he freely accepted from the
United Nations as an universal mandate. Indeed, the U.N. mandated him
to lead an committee of investigation of five concerning the civil
victims of the Israeli military action called Plumb Durci between
2008-2009 in Gaza. The report of the committee is deeply compromising
for Israel. But at April 1, 2011 Goldstone surprisingly desolidarized
himself from a large part of the report in opposition to the other
four members of the committee; namely he as orthodox Jew from
South Africa followed in Israel the pressure of the same communion he
belongs. Thus, the Zionist prescription for double citizen has been
followed.

Also interestingly Jean-Paul Sartre consequently
defended the Algiers cause against France on the base of universal
human right, however he never engaged for the Palestinian cause
against the Israeli occupation. (C. Schindler: The European left and
its trouble with Jews. IHT29.10.2012.)

Numerous cases could be presented. From
autobiographies of the Western diaspora we can learn how the
socialization process of the diaspora installs a primary national
solidarity with Israel. Mearsheimer cites many cases (148-9, 170).
Take now Eric Altman, a critical journalist. His grandparents and
parents send him in a Hebrew school and "my rabbi"
made from him "a teenager leader" and conducted him into
AIPEC.He tell "Imagine
a hypothetical clash between American and Israeli interest.
Here, I feel pretty lonely
admittingthat,
every once a while. I’m going to go with what’s
best for Israel.“(Can we talk
Nation, 21.4.2003.)

The organized "tourist tours" to Israel
program consequently by its content should be increase the feeling of
belonging to Israel. These are pilgrimages.

The goal is to increase
the chauvinistic solidarity, the synergy between the immigrants,
the double citizen living in their native land and the immigrants,
the Yishuv, in included the settlers in the West Bank.

(“Sheldon
Adelson the American casino magnate who backs Mr. Netanyahu and
who owns Israel Hayom(free) daily "ensures that the
the Israeli government continue this action and he will
continue his matching grant it of about $40 million to
Birthright,(!)
a program that brings young Jews to Israel”. (J.
Rudoren: Political Neophyte, Yahir Lapid confronts harsh realities.
IHT May
21,2013. J. R.: The day a mogul came to lunch IHT
May 30,13.)

In the perspective of the
Zionist movement the Jewish people can't be seen separately from the
State of Israel. The "Israel critic" Noam Chomsky
were voluntary workers in Kibuc, Rahm Emanuel, president Obama's
first chief of staff and later Chicago's major served
previously in the Israeli army as voluntary. Eric Altman and Charles
Krauthammer are American and Israeli double citizens, they don't have
state function. As newsmen they can be partial for Israel but they
should declare clearly in which perspective and interest are his
analyses the situation.

Henry Kissinger (Years
of Upheaval. Little, Boston, 1982, 203)with a tortuous way of
thinking presents the problem of double loyalty. By chance (?) the
Israeli leaders were his personal friend and he had difficulty to
master his affections. This affection dictated him to sign the
memorandum of 1975 in the name of USA which obliges Egypt to
provide Israel with oil. ( It is to be noted that in October 1973
Kissinger allowed to Dayan to break the UNSC ordered armistice
agreement during critical 48 hours.) Even more
prejudicial for USA, which he represented, was the memorandum of
1972. It obliges the United States to never present a peace plan for
Palestine without the previous contentment of Israel; meanwhile the
U.S. provided and provide Israel with the up-to-date military arsenal
Kissinger initiated the policy which provided Israel military
superiority in the region. The USA engaged itself to never obliged
Israel with sanctions or other pressure, - only by positive
motivation, namely by further gifts, subventions and new credits.
Abba Eban called this time the golden age for the Israeli military
supply. (Under the pressure of the Israeli lobby President Obama
enlarged even the US generosity. He amplified further the
US-Israel Enhanced Cooperation Act of 2012 in 2016.)

Among others, Washington
Institute for Near East (WINEP) - following Israeli instructions -
provides the American presidents arguments as pretexts that the
service for Israel is good for the USA too.

Following the
inspiration from WINEP Obama in a speech in the AIPAC and in its
interview in the Atlantic to
Jeffrey Goldberg concerning Iran nuclear limitation told:
“preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon isn’t
just(!) in the interest of Israel, it is profoundly in
the security interest of the U.S. It is right if Th. L.
Friedman writes in the IHT(Israel's best friend, 8.3.2012):.."Every
Israeli .. should be thankful to the president for
framing(!) the Iran issue this way.” (Th. L. Friedman: Israel’s
best friend. Friends with Benefits: Why the
U.S.-Israeli Alliance Is Good for America.
See also M. Eisenstadt and D. Pollack: Friends
with Benefits: Why the U.S.-Israeli Alliance Is Good for America in.
Foreign Affairs(7.11.2012.)

In reality, the
US-Israeli cooperation helps Israel but hurts US-Arab relation. For
example, how sees Uri Savir, the director Peres
Center for Peace the desired out come of the so-called Oslo
peace process: “the US and Israel should negotiate
a defense pact guaranteeing Israel’s
qualitative military advantage..” (IHT11.9.2013. U. Savir: Oslo, 20 years later.)

The Western one-sided and
unconditional support for Israel results, on one side from the new
definition of the belonging to the Jewish people (Mark Oppenheimer:
Reclaiming 'Jews' NYT 24.4.217), and on the other side the
submission of the non Zionist decision-makers to the Israeli lobby as
described by Mearsheimer and partly by J.J. Goldberg (246).

Since 1948, in the
post-Israeli perspective the members of the Jewish people are defined
as potential Israeli citizens independently that they are faithful
Jews or free-thinkers. The basic criteria is to be loyal to Israel.
This ambiguity in the (transitive Israel centric) definition of
Jewishness and Israelitness allows to stigmatize any critic of the
state of Israel as anti-Semitism.

Meanwhile Israel
follows its own interest independently from others. The
Israeli minister Ephraim Sneh exposed already in 1990: “ We
were against US-Iran dialogue because the interest of the U.S.
did not coincide with ours.” The American- Israeli lobby
followed Israel’s lead.” (Mearsheimer 291).

The diaspora
Zionists serving in their native country's administration should
insist for all price (!) that Israeli and US interest coincides
spontaneously as the specialists of WINEP expose;
otherwise they would appear as traitors.

Jason Vest
affirms that the coincidence between US and Israeli interests is an
opportunistic fiction.

(“The Men
from Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs and
the Center for Security Policy “underwritten by far-right
American Zionists” and “both effectively hold there
is no difference between US and Israeli national interests, and
the only way to assure continued safety and prosperity for both
(!) countries is though hegemony (!) in the Middle East –
a hegemony achieved with the traditional cold war recipe of feints,
force, clientelism and covert action”. (Jason Vest: The
men from NSA and CSP. The Nation.June 10, 20).William
B. Quandt a former loyal US representative in the UNSC describes
concretely how the subordination of the USA interest to Israel's
works (Decade of
Decisions: American Policy Toward the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1967-76.
U of California
Press, 1977. ).

The Zionist
movement uses different methods that the coincidence of US and
Israeli interests become a self-fulfilling prophecy. It tries to
place Zionists in the various administration that they have the
power to define, simply replace US interest by the Israeli one. On
this manner the coincidence is "tautological".

The end goal
is to replace the Christian background od Western policy by the
Zionist one. (We quoted already Glenn in this respect.)

The joint Program Plan and the National (!)
Jewish Community Relations Adversary Council (NJCRAC) stated
already in 1957 casually : “The American public accepted the
American Jewish concern about Israel.. as a natural(!),
normal(!) manifestation of interest based on sympathies and
emotional attachments of a sort that are common to many
Americans.” (Mearsheimer 394[7], 116.)

The Zionist media follow also the line that
Christianity mention alwaysJudeo-Christian as the Israeli interest alwaystogether with the Western one. Charles Krauthammer
in the Washington Post and William
Kristol in the National Interest insist that the war of Israel are
ours, meaning the West one's. (Krauthammer as double citizen
received for its apologetic works in 10 June 2002 the
Zion Award from the Ben-Ilan University [Mearsheimer 240]).

In
order to cover up the contradiction between Zionist engagement and
state loyalty of the diaspora many authors speak of
"variety of attachment " of man. (Measheimer
147. U. Schoen: Bi-Identität.
[Walter,
Zürich, 1996 ] p.177: "Kein Recht, double loyal zu sein. "
A.-M. Thiesse: La
création des identités nationales.
Seuil, Paris 1999.) The
most used sophism enumerates among the numbersome loyalties, e.g.,
that to working place or family. However, these various
loyalty concern institutions on different levels and doesn't hurt
national loyalty
and don't require a political choice as the loyalty to the home state
and (the newly created) Israel in critical situations does.

Since
the creation of Israel the general admission of double citizenship in
the West was a wishes of Zionists, even if they strive for the
immigration to Israel. the double citizenship facilitates that
Zionists if they are accused for state treason - or for any less
noble reason - find refuge in Israel. An eminent case was
the Russian Yukos case, when Gusinov, the Russian representative of
WJO, Navzlin, Dubov and Bridno find refuge in Israel against
Russian persecution.

Israel
has also an interest to have in administrations of foreign
countries - esp. USA - Zionists who keep a "low profiled"
(Measheimer 18, 118). Since the belonging to the Jewish people
is defined simply since 1948 by Israel centric attitude the formal
double citizenship is not necessary and advisable, - anyway is
obtainable by Jews immediately at Tel-Aviv Ben Gurion airport. In
Hebrew they are named as sayanim,
helpers. In the USA
administration Bern-Ami Kadish made spying work between 1979 and
1985, Jonathan J Pollard and Steward David Nozette did in
the Department of Defense. (Boston
Globe , 20.10.2009.
In general see James Petras publications: Bended Knees - Zionist
Power in American Politics. Site rense/com: J. P.: Zionism,
Militarism and the Decline of US Power. Clarity
Press, Atlanta, 2008.)

As
we already noted the double loyalty implied in the double citizenship
is not a important problem for the ordinary migrants (except if
conscription exists), but if somebody has some political charges, the
clearing his primary loyalty seems necessary. Zionists protests
against tendency to exclude double citizens from politically
representative function or at least made the existence of double
citizenship public, pretending to be a discrimination. But even the
Zionist norm to serve anywhere first Israel interest makes this
checking of background necessary.

Dan
Eden exposes clearly (Dual Citizenship. Loyal to whom?
(www.viewzone.com/dualcitizen.html
2012.11.8) that the American Nationality Act of 1940 forbids (art.
401[e]) that somebody votes in a foreign country. However, in 1967
the Supreme Court under Zionist influence made an exception in the
case of Byes Afroyim; even that he voted in Israel, he doesn't
lost his American Citizenship.

Even more
chocking is to learn the Zionist double standard in this very issue.
According to the rules of Israeli Knesset (art 16A) nobody can be
making the oath, if he also have a foreign citizenship and has the
possibility to renounce of it.

We have no
statistics which proportion of the Jewish people - believer (dati)
and nonbeliever (hiloni) - worldwide follows the Israel
centrism Zionist requirement. Of course, the Zionist representation
among the financers of think-tanks and in the ranges of the
researchers which makes the design of geopolitical narratives, the
deduced proposed strategy for complaisant political deciders as well
as in the media which comments the decisions for the ordinary citizen
is the most important question.

Concerning
the Zionist street movements in the West against anti-Semitism, we
can observe that more and more the Star of David appears on flags
between two blue lines which is the flag of the State of Israel. On
this way the defense of the adherent to the Jewish religion involved
implicitly and immediately support of the Zionist policy of a
state, the State of Israel(See Mira Sucharov: Values, Identity,
and Israel Advocacy. In: Foreign Policy Analysis ,7. 2011,
366: G. Gorenberg: Think Again; Israel. In: Foreign
Policy. 5.2008. Alan Dershowitz: The Case for Israel. John
Wiley, Hoboken, 2003. Dershowitz at Harvard Law School is the typical
representative of "Israel über alles ".)

The CPMAJO
and other Zionist organizations see that there is a hitch somewhere
with the double loyalty and Zionist apologists try to hide the
problem.

Roger Cohen, a
journalist the New York Times - born in South Africa - shows how the
evaluation of a political parties - in the case of British
Labour Party - by the media depends from the participation of
Zionists in their direction. Since the Zionist Miliband
brothers - Ralph and David - lost the power to Jeremy Corny who is
not unilaterally engaged for Israel it is constantly attacked
by the press. The title of Cohen's article is clear: "A Jew not
quite English enough" (IHT8.10.2013). Cohen describes the two brothers as
"trembling Israelites, since the state of Israel exists and
their national loyalty is questioned. The Daily
Mail (A man who hated Britain) stated
that the Milibands' father, a Polish immigrant hated Britain.
Cohen concludes his reasoning with the sentence: "David Mili
tweeted that his father loved Britain. He now lives in New York, a
city of "full-throated Jewishness."

In general terms, the
Zionists created basic problems for the West by relating the
definition of "World Jewry" objectively to the state
of Israel and subjectively requiring the loyalty to it.

(Mark Openeimer in
Reclaiming 'Jew' [NYT 24.4.2017,11] wrote: "The Founding
of the State of Israel has given the word "Israelite"
new connotation.")

As already mentioned,
the Agency for Israel created in 2002 the Jewish People
Institute . It describes its mission with precision: (a) serving the
interest of the "World Jewry" with research and action
("alert to emerging opportunity and threats") and (b); in
the defense of these interests the state of Israel creates the
"core". Significantly under the founders and leaders
we find personalities who largely influenced the U.S. policy as
insiders like Dennis Ross and Stuart Eizenstadt.

If those belong to the
Jewish People who can obtain automatically the citizenship of the
State of Israel - allowed by the (orthodox) rabbinate, - this
large definition permits to englobe in the Jewish People observant
religious Jews and also secular non observant ones. But by accepting
the dependence to the Jewishness from a political concept, - namely
the State of Israel, - the members of the world Jewry's
capacity to represent politically other states become necessarily
questionable. On one side, the problematic of double loyalty emerges,
and on the other side, the reserves against engagement of Zionist Jew
as civil servant could not (!) be systematically assimilated to old
Christian biblical anti-Semitism anymore.

After situating the
Zionism as major political factor in relation to the West, we
look on the Zionism global aspiration.

NOTES

[i]The expression Zionism originates from the
Viennese newsman, Nathan Birnbaum (1880). S.
Monoz wrote about Naissance
politique (Gallimard, Paris,
1981.) Claude Franck and Michel
Herszlikowicz (Le sionisme.
PUF, 1980, 6) state that the Zionism is the national religion of the
Israeli people. Therefore the Zionism is a political movement.

[iv]The general strategy of Zionist
movement to make existentially dependent of the society’s
influential circles. Glenn (28-30) distinguishes correctly
« pecuniary, institutional and intellectual
corruptions ». In the later case “authority would
replace justification, invocation of heresy or treason would
replace exchange.”

[v]The Harvard Law School is
practically occupied by the Zionist. See the activist professor Alan
Dershowitz censuring activities.

For the situation an the American
elite institution it is characteristically the Yale historian Paul
Kennedy’s remark: (
Which Catholic Church? Feb. 27,13, IHT):
“being about the only (!) professor at liberal,
tolerant, cosmopolitan Western university who is known to be a
practicing catholic – baptized (!) .. – I have
been asked …”

The terminology concerning Torah is not
unanimous. The same term also is used to designate The Pentateuch,
Moses five books on the beginning of the Old Testament as a written
version of the oral Torah. Some times the Torah designates all the
Old Testament. The acronym Tanakh incudes Torah, Moses five books,
Nebiim, the book of prophets Ketuvim and other sacred writings.
Anyway the designation of Hebrew Bible for the Old testament
is false because it excludes the part written in Aramaic.
(William Safire in IHT, 26.5.1997.)

Anyway the present Judaism is Talmudic.
The Talmud itself has two versions the Jerusalem or Palestine
(conceived between 230 and 500 A.D.) and the Babylonian (500 AD).
Judah wrote the Mishna (repetition) as a commentary to Torah.
Probably it originates from 150 A.D. – surly between 70 and
200. We find in this work the law-book Halakhah and the
Haggadah containing legends. The Hebrew Mishna and
the Aramaic Gemara constitutes together the Talmud. The
various Talmuds are text coming from the oral Torah. These
collections of Rabbinical interpretation of the Bible as well as
theological controversies originated between 70 and 200 A.D.

Contrary to the Judaism’s
reformist and conservative tendencies of New York the orthodox
Judaism “is in charge of the (Israeli) state
religious bodies like the chief rabbinate” (IHT Sept. 6,13,
p.2).

[vii]Glenn: “This must be done, if more
generally, talmudic law is to serve in the future as a model
or example (!) for western law.” (See yet in the chapter
“Talmudic Example?” : “How can such an ancient and
religious tradition continue to provide a model, however in
contemporary states which see themselves as secular?”
“More generally, it [talmudic tradition] is enriching
western thinking on how law can be conceived (!).” (128)
“Again in the U.S.A., it is said that the academy is suffering
a loss of confidence in the moral and intellectual basis of
authoritative and supposedly neutral legal interpretation and
in liberal political theory generally and would now be
seeking ‘alternative model’.”

The advance made by the Talmudic tradition to the
Western lawmakers see also

Stone S. L. : In Pursuit of the
Counter-Ext: The Turn to the Jewish Legal Model in
Contemporary American Legal Theory. Harvard Law Review,
1993, 106, 813. :“So talmudic law in the U.S.A. would be
being reinterpreted to provide (!) a requisite ‘counter-model
for U.S. law, while its incorporation (!) into the U.S.
legal thinking would also redefining U.S. legal theory.”

Yet Stone about Maimonides in late 20th
c. U.S. Case Law. (Glenn 129): “..notion of legal
acculturation and a unitary Judea American legal tradition.”
.

[viii]Cf. Edward Saïd : America’s
Last Taboo. New Left Review. November
2000.

[ix]The
Zionist newsman Robert Kagan and other so-called
neoconservatives wrote an in September 2000. an open letter to
president Bush (Project for the New
American Century) denominating Israel
as „America’s best ally against international
terrorism“ and requires to stationing American military in
Near East. Kegan R.: America Made.
A.A.Knopf, New York, 2012.
Mearsheimer J.J. and S. M. Walt: The
Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.
Penguin, London, 2007. 206, 437[155], 258)

[x]John Mearsheimer op. cit. 128-32.
James Petras:
Bended Knees: Zionist Power in American Politics.Clarity press Christchurch NZ, 2012.
J. P.: The Power
of Israel in the U.S.Clarity
Press, Atlanta, 2006.

[xi]See also Alex Strick van Linschoten: An
Enemy We Created“ (Mearsheimer
131). According to the conservative Russel Kirk: “what really
animates the neoconservatives .. is the preservation of
Israel, that lies in back of everything.” 193, 416[99].
Goldberg J. J. ( Jewish Power: Inside
the American Establishment. Reading,
MA, 1997, 159) cites the truly traditional conservatives and says:
“Neoconservatives are a ”sort of Jewish Trojan Horse
invading the American right”. (See also Alam: 219, 250[53,54])

The pre-millenistic form of the
dispensionist theology of XIX. c. (Louis Way, Darby) is the
Christian neoconservatives doctrinal reference. They believe that
the Jews will convert at the return of Jesus, therefore the
constitution of Israel in Palestine is a first step. This
current influenced Belfour, even Wilson
and perhaps Trumant too, whwn he recognized the state of Israel. The
present American Christian Zionists such as John
Hugue movement the Christian United for Israel or the
Christian Friends of Israel are simply „Junior
Partners” of the Zionists (Mearsheimer 115, 132, 330, 398-99.
Alam 129, 211, 152, 241[22].) Woodrow Wilson brought into the
mainstream of American public life the Zionist newsman Walter
Lippmann and the judge Louis D. Brandies. (Kevin Baker: Woodrow
Wilson, the professor in chief. IHT,
Sept.21,13)

[xii]According to Alam (198) Chomsky
deny the existence of a Zionist collusion.

[xiv]Roger Cohen quotes the Israeli prime minister
Netanyahu : “Israel as a Jewish State and the homeland
for the Jewish People.” The Bafour Declaration as well as the
UN decision 181, use the term "Jewish People".

A main problem with the definition of Jewish
people is that the Israeli rabbinate defines the
Jewishness in Orthodox terms, while the American one in
Reformist and Conservative one. (Israelis grow distant from American
Jewry. IHT 18.11.1997). The definition of Jewishness results
from the interpretation of halakha.

[xvi]The Zionist national anthem, Hatikva wrote
by Naphtali Herz Imber in 1878 says: “yearning of the
Jewish Soul” to be “a free nation in our land, the land
of Zion and Jerusalem” (IHTMarch 6, 2912,, 4).

[xvii]Adams Elliott: Faith
or Fear in a Christian America. New
York, Simon, 1997, 181: “Jews… are to stand apart from
the nation in which they live. It is a very nature of
being Jewish to be part - except in Israel (!) – from the rest
of the population.” [Mearsheimer 167])

Connie Bruck (“Friends of Israel, The
New Yorkercf Roger
Cohen: War of Choice in Gaza INYTSept 9,14) quotes Brian Baird former Democratic
congressman: “The difficult reality is this: in
order to get elected to Congress, if you’re not
independendetly waelthy, you have to raise a lot of
money. And you learn pretty quickly that, if AIPAC
is on your side, you can do that. Connie Bruck quotes also the
congressman, John Yarmuth : “We all took an oath of
office. And AIPAC in many instances, is asking us to ignore
it.”

LRB | Vol. 28 No. 6 dated 23 March 2006 |

John Mearsheimer and

Stephen Walt:

printable layout

The Israel Lobby

For the past
several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in

1967, the
centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its

relationship
with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel

and the related
effort to spread ‘democracy’ throughout the region has

inflamed Arab
and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but

that of much of
the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in

American
political history. Why has the US been willing to set aside its

own security and
that of many of its allies in order to advance the

interests of
another state? One might assume that the bond between the two

countries was
based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral

imperatives, but
neither explanation can account for the remarkable level

of material and
diplomatic support that the US provides.

Instead, the
thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely

from domestic
politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel

Lobby’.
Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy,

but no lobby has
managed to divert it as far from what the national

interest would
suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US

interests and
those of the other country – in this case, Israel – are

essentially
identical.

Since the
October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level

of support
dwarfing that given to any other state. It has been the largest

annual recipient
of direct economic and military assistance since 1976,

and is the
largest recipient in total since World War Two, to the tune of

[23] Yuval Azoulay and Barak Ravid, Bolton: ‘Near
zero chace' Pres. Bush will strike Iran, Haaretz, January 24, 2008;
Israeli Transportation Minister, Shaul Mofaz, also indicated at the
Herzilya Conference that the years 2008 and 2009 will also see the
last diplomatic efforts against Tehran before an implied military
option (attack) against the Iranians. The Israeli Transportation
Minister also made similar threats before saying that sanctions had
till the end of 2007 to work against Iran until the military option
would be prepaired. This prior threat was made as he led the Israeli
delegation of the Israeli-U.S. Joint Political Military Group, which
focuses on Iran, Syria, Palestine, and Lebanon. Shaul Mofaz was also
the former commander of the Israeli military, a former Israeli
defence minister, and hereto is one of the individuals in charge of
the Iran file in Tel Aviv.

[24] Iran may be working on nuclear warheads: Israeli
Defence Minister, The Times of India, January 26, 2008; Israel
suspects Iranians already working on nuclear warhead, Agence
France-Presse (AFP), January 16, 2008; Lally Weymouth, A Conversation
With Ehud Barak, The Washington Post, January 26, 2008, p.A17.

Investigations in human science could be divided into the
following spheres:

0.Categoriology and Practical Epistemology

Foundation of the universality of knowledge; universals of
civilizations; prolegomenous questions in research; scientific
methods of criticism (metalanguage of science, conceptual and
terminological analysis).

Patterns of external spatio-temporal behavior; categories for
handling of introspective data and of self-decision; "equations"
with normative and behavioral terms for complex personal
decision-making.

3. Social Communication Science

Human social entities and processes as interaction networks and
structures.

4. Human Ecosciences

Economics and ecology; systematic interaction of human social
entities with the whole non-human sphere.

5. Societal Decision Making and Engineering

Operationalization of the system of public objectives; usable
knowledge (applied science, trial and error) for societal and
physical planning; complex (interactive) models.

RESEARCH ISSUES AND
PRIORITIES

Sciences have their internal dynamics, since in most instances a
new question is implied in the response given to a previous one. The
history of science shows, however, that the selection of issues that
receive priority, and to which are allocated material as well as
intellectual means, does not necessarily proceed according to the
inner logic of the science in question, but is largely determined by
extrinsic factors, such as: authoritarianism, personality cult,
position of power, political opportuneness that makes certain
subjects fashionable (e.g., the energy crisis following the Middle
East war in 1974). INU considers research priorities independently of
these considerations and intends to counterbalance these tendencies
with its limited means.

The determination of research priorities is an opportunity to
return to essentials. As a matter of fact, recently the
over-abundance of means generated a plethora of dubious, ephemeral,
and theoretically unreflected data (esp. polls, survey and interview
data) that obstruct outlook and encumber clear perspectives. In order
to prevent further wasting of human and material resources, INU
doesn't contribute to the proliferation of pseudo-scientific
publications that serve personal promotion or vanity unnecessarily
overloading our information systems. To this end INU often publishes
research results anonymously and determines research priorities only
according to its own criteria.

In general terms, INU considers it imperative for the development
of the human sciences today that assumptions inherent in the concepts
used be revisited and made explicit before generating new data. In
the light of this conceptual control, data should be reevaluated,
unreliable or invalid data discarded from data banks (however costly
their production proved to be), and other data should be
reinterpreted in this perspective.

The subsequent list of priority research topics doesn't claim to
be exhaustive but represents an invitation to reflection. At the same
time INU has neither the intention nor the means to carry out
research on all these questions on its own, but rather submits them
as suggestions to fellow researchers.

1. Issues of the epistemology and sociology of scientific
knowledge (esp. human sciences).

What are the requirements for a publication to be called a
"communication in human sciences"?

How can it make its content controllable in order to detach
scientific knowledge from journalism at least as clearly as a
publication in physical science does?

By which procedure can scientific criticism (book reviews, etc.)
fulfill its control function?

Development of scientific methodology for criticism (metalanguage
of practical epistemology, criticism of actual book review praxis of
scientific periodicals).

Threshold of scientific communication: the entry of a title in a
special bibliography. Elements and construction of a scientific
title. Methods for automatic selection and abstracting. Thesaurus
construction.

How should coexisting civilizations be enumerated as geopolitical
blocks? How can current geographical and political labeling prejudge
the enumeration of actually coherent blocks?

How is the spatio-temporal variety of living civilizations being
reduced to a mainly temporal succession of civilizations, (from
"aires" to "ères") a globalistic doctrine
of econo-centered development?

How does the different approach to international social policy and
humanitarian action delineate and classify subsidiarily coexisting
civilizations?

Are true universals of a world civilization in the making or just
one-sidedly Western values and categories diffused by global
communication?

Coexisting and dominant civilizations. (Criteria for their
enumeration and mapping... Classifications... Ideo-pictographic...
Alphabetic scripts... Oral...Categorial and conceptual arrangement of
their thoughts.)

The universal character of specific scientific knowledge
(Conditions... Characteristics... Proofs through its predictive power
and replicability in application.)

Underlying assumptions of concepts and theories. (Universals of
general models.. in systems theory.)

Which kinds of approach to problem-solving did different
civilizations develop?

Their assessment from this viewpoint...Relative effectiveness of
scientific problem-solving...Inadequacy of end-means dichotomy
models... Non-analytical, action-oriented, interactive and other
problem-solving procedures... Immediacy of goal achievement...
Satisfaction... Behavior of other mammalia in life situations.

3. Issues of objective sociology.

How can social behavior be studied exclusively by correlations
between external (physical) variables?

How is the predictive power of a body of knowledge a criterion for
its scientificalness?

Individual behavior...Social events...

Extrapolations and models..Limits in time and scope...Supervention
as insufficient proof. (Incidental occurrence...Futurological
sophism: repercussion of published predictions on future events and
thus unverifiability of the epistemological value of past
predictions. Self-fulfilling prophecy.) Modern augury: deliberate use
of ideological effects ("Historical necessity", Cassandran
alarmism, doomsday catastrophism...)

Efficient overall use of resources... (Discrepancy in growths of
stock, shares, production and employment...) Production, distribution
and conservation... with spec. emphasis on processes besides national
accounts (Informal and quaternary sector...)

7. Issues of suicidology.

What is revealed by suicide?

The measure of eudemonia by its negative, the manifest negation of
the value of life... Objective description. (Demographic... Of
personal history... Life-cycles... Health... Life-long contacts...
Social frequentations... Other activities.)

How can a counselor enter into the private science of self? How
can he revise categories of self-image and enumerate alternatives?

Life problems... Perceiving... Analyzing... Solving...

CURRENT MAIN RESEARCH
PROJECT"GLOBALISM": GLOBAL COMMUNICATION WITHOUT
UNIVERSAL CIVILIZATION (5 active civilizations and the 3 elements
of social cohesion) Abstract

The social cohesion itself is structured by (a) social
heritage preserved by various Scriptures, (b) parenthood for
race-preservation and (c) collaborative (eco-)resource management for
self-preservation.

Global Age and its rhetoric of "globalism" doesn't bring
spontaneously universal civilization but rather the ambition
for global hegemony of (1) the so-called "West",
which does not recognize the necessity of civilizational cooperation
based on reciprocal interdependence.

This corresponds to the tenet that the Western ideology, the
economism, attributes to the model, which will and should be
imitated by all. The vitality of the existing civilizations
having other cardinal institutions and other core values than the
Western ones such as (2) the Chinese and peri-Chinese (Japanese,
Korean), (3) the Hindu, (4) the Muslim (originating in the Arabic
Scripture of the Koran) and (5) the Brazilian
(Afro-Euro-Indian) - American - alloy is denied, archaized and
ostracized.

In short, we approach the exposed scope of the problem by
identifying the active civilizations of our age as actors by their
coherence and actual cohesion, as well as their specific relations
and interactions. If we conjecture the existence of the enumerated
actors, we do not privilege the relation between the West and
Non-West but study all 10 competitive and cooperative
relations between them. Finally, we overcome the Western-centered
viewpoint also by asking the representative intellectuals of each
civilization considered not only to discuss its own but in parallel
all the 5 civilizations with its 10 relations. (See also G.
Ankerl: Variation of the Concept According to Different Civilizations
in Democracy and Tolerance UNESCO, Paris, 1995, pp. 59-78.)

In 2000 we published the results of the first phase of the
project (see INU Press) and work on the second one: A World
civilization by Federation of civilization-states.

ARTICLES, RESEARCH NOTES AND
REPORTS

THE WEST AND THE
ARABO-MUSLIM WORLD

[Commentary by G.
Ankerl, professor of sociology]

In my book on the
peaceful coexistence of geopolitical spheres (Coexisting Contemporary
Civilizations: Arabo-Muslim, Bharati, Chinese and Western) and in my
papers published also in Hungarian, furthermore, in my article
published in Magyar Nemzet on 10 April 2010 under the heading "What
Can the West Do in the Interest of Reconciliation With the
Arab-Muslim Sphere?" I expounded the independent nature of the
Arab-Muslim cultural community. The flared-up popular movements raise
the question of how they can be interpreted in a long-term and global
perspective.

We can pick out two
aspects in the objective description of the phenomenon. One: it can
be considered as a new feature that, unquestionably and surprisingly,
rather than arising under Western motivation, the movement was
generated in the Arab-Muslim world itself, and it spread like
wildfire, almost completely embracing the sphere of Arab speakers, be
they Shi'i or Sunni populations. (For example, Sunni Muslims live in
Tunisia and Egypt, while the majority is Shi'i in Bahrain.) Another
neglected aspect can be related to this, namely the fact that this is
not some kind of boundless internationalist movement guided by the
slogan of "Proletarians of the world, unite!" In addition
to the domestic demands of democratic rule, an important role is also
played in the movements by the fact that the rule of the more or less
despotic kings, princes (sultans), and other tyrants was not
legitimized by referenda but basically by the western recognition of
their power. (See the idea of the influential Saban Centre for Middle
East Policy, Washington, that the US Government should continue to
support with its advice the continuance of the oil-producing
principalities, and attempt to replace the remaining autocrats with
not yet compromised pro-Western "pro-consuls.") Therefore,
it is not just an uprising but also a fight for independence that is
going on in the Arab-Muslim world.

The West places its
strategy on the comfortable world view that, outside its own sphere
of civilization, it only recognizes the Chinese and perhaps Indian
independent existence, and considers these competitive with its own
only to the extent that they copy (to use Bill Clinton's words) the
western market democracy. However, as the Arab-Muslim world has not
yet managed to establish a state comprehensively representing its
civilization (like, in addition to China and India, the United States
in the West), the West simply ignores the interconnection of the
Arab-Muslim geopolitical sphere, and in fact is treating it in its
own way with salami tactics. Its moguls have been given the task to
deepen the conflicts between Shi'i and Sunni Muslims, Arab and
non-Arab Muslims - and the (pre-nationalism) tribal conflicts -
although in its community striving for unity (ummah), Islam is the
least discriminative doctrine regarding origin and nationality. I
would note that we are only dealing here with the religious issue in
so far as it is a cohesive force in a geopolitical sphere.

The majority of
rebels coming from anonymous Muslim families - whether they practice
their religion or not - probably were not members of the persecuted
Muslim Brotherhood founded by the Egyptian Hassan al-Banna in 1928,
whose membership was decimated by the dictatorial regimes. However,
as the founder's grandchild Tariq Ramadan (who was naturalized in
Geneva and is currently lecturing in Oxford) points out in his works,
this multi-faceted movement that does not strive for exclusiveness,
which has been fighting with political means for the independence of
the Arab-Muslim cultural community from the very beginning, will
perform an important role in the Muslim world of the new
self-governments through its organization and widespread reach.

The question arises:
what is the western trend based on, which ignores the ummah? Yossi
Klein Halevi, a fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute, writes in the
3 February 2011 issue of The New York Times under the title "Israel,
Alone Again?": "In its relationship with the Palestinians,
Israel is Goliath. But in its relationship with the Arab and Muslim
worlds, Israel remains David."

Nevertheless, whether
we like it or not, the connection of the Arab-Muslim world has to be
realized and recognized. The attempts at division and the wars waged
on individual countries like Iraq or Afghanistan - possibly Iran -
only lead to the West bleeding (to death), consequently, also to its
geopolitical weakening against China.

We must start from
the paradigm that when the West only supports Israel by demanding
certain justified conditions - like ending the illegal colonization
of Palestine - and adherence to these, our geopolitical sphere is not
in an irreconcilable conflict with the Arab-Muslim world. If this in
turn corresponds to international political reality, the West must
strive for conciliation with the Muslim world as between equals,
which would take the sting out of the extremist Islamic movements
that are mistrustful of the West.

A historic
opportunity is provided for this by the Muslim population's potent
action for its all-embracing (both in terms of democratic rule in the
country and international independence) self-determination, demanding
a political system that is compatible with, even if not identical to
the western model. This is the international significance of the
current uprisings for us.

However, let us
briefly review the issues put forward for maintaining the western
dissatisfaction with the Arab-Muslim world, namely the flood of
Muslim immigrants, the oil blackmail, and the Iranian nuclear threat.

When we talk about
conciliation with the Arab-Muslim geopolitical sphere, this is about
interstate political conciliation. As for generations no Muslim
country's army has set foot on European land, it is the West that has
to give up threatening actions with the military, attacking, or
occupying Muslim countries under any pretext. Spontaneous personal
immigration is basically an internal matter for every country.
Western colonization has in fact opened wide the gates before it,
however, the real establishment of self-governance in the Arab-Muslim
countries could largely reduce this pressure.

In connection with
the current uproar, as well as to the biggest Arab country Egypt, the
West is also paying special attention to the "less populous"
Arab monarchies owing to their rich oil reserves. As for ensuring the
oil supply, just like all, more or less rare raw materials (see
metals), it is unevenly distributed throughout the world. It is a
normal phenomenon that every country depends on the others in
something. According to the modern, liberal model of free trade,
(instead of colonizing them,) the resources can be obtained through
world market bargaining. In reality only the 1973 oil embargo, which
afflicted the West, has remained in the memory of world political
consciousness. However, it can be established that this was a
response to the western attitude in the unresolved
Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Since Iran started to
conduct independent politics, the West has considered it almost as a
casus belli [Latin, justification for acts of war] that in the Middle
East, in addition to Israel, perhaps the Persians will also obtain
the nuclear weapon. Well, a country's deterrent potential does not in
itself present a danger for all others. Only those deny this who base
the world order on hegemony. Iran is not threatening the West. What
interest would it serve for it to fire missiles at Hungary, for
example? It was precisely Israel that did not accept the
establishment of the proposed Middle East nuclear free zone. An
agreement between the West and the Arab-Muslim geopolitical sphere
cannot wait for David to defeat Goliath.

The Arab-Muslim
peoples' democratic realization and attainment of self-determination
provide a unique historic opportunity for the West to establish
accord with them. Turkey's resourceful foreign minister could play an
important role in this deal.

MULTUCULTURAL COOPERATION AMONG
SPHERES OF CIVILIZATIONS INSTEAD OF CONTINENTS

by Guy
Ankerl

The
worldwide cooperation should be based on the various coexisting
spheres of civilizations. (Already in the resolution 2106 of the
General Assembly of the U.N. about Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination - dating to 21 December 1969
and ratified at 4 January 1069 - expressed
the requirement that by the selection of the 18 experts of
the control Committee "consideration being given to
(beside the geographical distribution) to the representation of
the different forms of civilization as well as of the
principal legal systems.")

The
most significant are the Arabo-Muslim, the Bharati (Hindu), the
Chinese and the Western one. In respect to a global cooperation
it is an important (geo-)political fact that the Chinese and the
Bharati one already arrived to constitute civilization-states, while
the (tricontinental) Arabo-Muslim and the Western have some important
entities (like USA), but their larger political unification (umma)
is unachieved (EU).

The toponym, ‘Asia’
as such have no title to participate in a global intercivilizational
dialogue and cooperation. Even if it is today physically more or less
delineated, historically this ancient denomination has been
used by various Western powers as the ‘East’ - or
non-West - ready for conquest. In the present-today effort to
recognize the existence and validity of other rankings of human value
as the West’s, it is a conceptual pitfall to look for so-called
“Asian values”. Confucian’s, Hindu and Muslim value
orders are not only different in some aspects from the Jewish and
Christian ones but also differs among themselves.

For this very reason, -
even if since 2002 a loosely constituted Asian-wide
organization, the Asian Cooperation Dialogue exists, - the various
Asian regional organizations such as ASEAN, SAARC, CCASG
handle very differently the issues of the so-called Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.

Thus further work for global community should
federate spheres of civilizations, and not proceed from the
western-centered continental divisions of the globe. (Ref.: Guy
Ankerl: Global Communication without
universal civilization. Vol. I: Coexisting Contemporary
Civilizations: Arabo-Muslim, Bharati, Chinese, and Western,
2000. “From hegemonic “Salvation of the ‘Third
World’ to Cooperation among Civilizations”, pp. 339ff. G.
A.: The Relativity of Human Rights within the era of society
based on contracts between equals. In: International
Journal of Human Rights. London, Sept.
2011, 14-3

RELATIVITY
OF HUMAN RIGHTS: RIGHT TO LIFE (LIVING) AND TO PRIVATE PROPERTY
(INHERITED CAPITAL) IN A SOCIETY BASED ON CONTRACTS BETWEEN EQUALS)

International
Journal of Human Rights. London,
sept. 2011, 14-36.

Abstract

Following Locke and Pufendorf in the XVII centuryand then Rousseau and Kant in the XVIII century the Western
Enlightenment developed, in the fight against the authority of the
aristocracy by birth and against the spiritual authority of the
clergy, a liberal model of society based on an individualistic value
order (J. Beckert: Inherited Wealth, Princeton UP, Princeton,
2008. Original edition: Unverdientes
Vermögen, Campus, Frankfurt, 2004,
29). This model is built upon everyone’s equal rights
and upon a society constituted solely of ‘market-type’
relations contracted between individuals with self-determination. So
man should be born into a society in which no social discrimination
disturbs the equality of chance. (It is to be remarked that society
has nothing to say regarding the in-born natural gifts but does
regarding a given title, such as nobility, as well ascapital transfer by inheritance. (S. J. McNamee and R. K.
Miller Jr.: The Meritocracy Myth. 2nd ed.
Rowman, Lanham, 2009, 55-64.) This secular doctrine postulates that,
since this reasoning meets the natural human sense for justice, the
deduced basic human rights are (a) natural ones (inalienable), with
(b) universal validity traceable to the fundamental principles.
Therefore they are in harmony with themselves and do not require a
principle of ranking. Finally, (c) the state is no more than a
constitution of means contracted by free individuals. (Hobbes sees it
as a “compact for self-preservation and protection”.)

Since in our time mankind is in possession of the technical means to
construct a unified civilization embracing the whole world, it is
above all timely to study the universal validity and applicability of
the societal model offered by the West.

For this inquiry the United Nation’s so-called Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) from 1948, as an institutional
embodiment, could constitute an empirical basis. This list of rights
draws upon the “Déclaration des droits de l’homme
et du citoyen” from the French revolution of 1789 (modified in
1793 and 1795.) (G. Chinard: La
déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen et ses
antécédents américains.
Institut Français, Washington DC, 1945). It was
completed in 1966 by two international covenants.

First we will examine the concordance of the enumerated rights with
the liberal fundamental principles and then the system’s
internal coherence. John Locke and the natural right theorists
presupposed a priori a harmony and therefore didn’t look for a
principle of ranking. However, as the spontaneous unity of the human
rights is not obvious, we must consider the ranking them. For
paradigmatic reasons we will study chiefly how the ontological
fundamental principle of liberal doctrine dictates the ranking of the
right to life of man (including the means of living) relatively to
the right to private property (including the right to inherited
capital). This will be done on two levels, (1) that of the UDHR as a
non-binding document and, (2) in light of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), in that of the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

After these normative considerations we confront the liberal norm
system with the anthropological realities of mankind in order to
learn its relevancy and applicability. For paradigmatic reasons we
consider, especially, that aspect of man’s anthropological fate
that each man is not born as a self-supporting adult (“self-made
man”) but as a dependent baby into a particular civilization
already in progress and into its history that is well under way.
Thus, for the realization of the liberal utopia, man is born too
early and too late.

Two questions arise: (1) with these anthropological realities is it
possible to reduce all human relations to contracts made between
responsible individuals and (2) is the right of the transmission of
private capital property by inheritance compatible with the equality
of new-born individuals and their equal chance?

Willy-nilly the humanist value order of the Enlightenment is only one
of the existing and conceivable ones [G. Ankerl: Global Communication
without Universal Civilization. Vol. I. Coexisting Contemporary
Civilizations: Arabo-Muslim, Bharati, Chinese, and Western. INUPress,
Geneva, 2000, xxvi], even if the West tries on all the occupied
territories (of Dar al-Islam like Afghanistan and Iraq/ to educate
the children in schools corresponding to neoliberal prescripts, raise
them then in its likeness.

Indeed, for neoliberal globalism the issue of the alternative world
view is settled by portraying the Western one as rationally
superior, while labeling the others as archaic. Eclipsing all others,
the Western civilization should be the prefiguration of the future
world civilization. Yet, the real prospective value of a model can
only be evaluated in the light of its fitting into the given
conditions of human beings.

As we just demonstrated, it is a primordial and inescapable
anthropological fact that man, in opposition to some other mobile
living beings, ie: “animals”, does not come into the
world as a self-supporting adult. Consequently, before man can create
a society with a network of contracts, he is at the mercy of the
charity of the ‘full-fledged individuals’ community and
its spiritual influence. Even man becomes only part of a determined
human society as a speech community by learning “his”
mother tongue. Before he can freely make a contract his parents put
him, progressively, in determined, distinctive relations to his
kinship, siblings, playmates (later co-workers), neighbors, fellow
countrymen, to the followers of a Script, as well as to the other
animals and the animate as well as the inanimate world. As a matter
of fact, all existing societies are held together and function by (a)
axiomatic (pre-)Script, (b) genealogical reproductive ties and (c)
contractual exchange for economical and ecological subsistence
(Ankerl 49ff).

The individualist prescript is one of many conceivable possibilities.
In the extreme, ego-centered perspective, the individual can take the
other beings in his surrounding as a simple means of his well-being
and the whole society could be considered as simple means. (In fact
the ego can be inspected only from the interior by introspection.
Durkheim shows in the attribution of a soul to man the sacrilization
of the individual (E. Durkheim: The Division of Labor in Society.
Macmillan, New York, 1984 [1893]). According to John Locke, the
relation of the individual to its environment consists in the taking
possession of it. Possession of private property takes precedence
over the existence of society (Beckert 71, 28, 7).

For example consider the case of a non-Western
individual who falls into a Hindu nest and will be educated in that
society. His first idea for survival will not be the appropriation of
his environment by economic transformation but his adaptation to the
universe. (For a true Hindu the present wave of fashionable regard
for the environment, as well as for the rights of animals, seems a
hasty patch up of the anthropocentric individualism of the
Enlightenment.)

We will now develop the presented material in the following order:

- first the principles of a societal order based on the
equal rights of individuals;

- the concordance of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights with their requirements and its legal application in the ICCPR
and in the ICESCR;

- in the case of possible contradictions among these
rights the determination of priorities by considering, especially,
the relation between the right to life (living) and the monolithic
concept of all types of private property as a absolute human right;

- the role of private property (right of inherited
capital) in the new system of discrimination and in the establishment
of a plutocratic dynasticism.

- Finally we raise the question whether
the anthropological fact of the state of human capabilities at birth
does not make, from the whole construction of a society based
exclusively on contracts among equal individuals, an utopia which
serves as a rhetoric justification of the existing Western societal
model, where, in fact, only one discrimination is admitted; namely
the right of inheritable private propert

Guy
Ankerl:

THE
RELATIVITY OF HUMAN RIGHTS:

RIGHT TO LIFE
(LIVING) AND TO PRIVATE PROPERTY (INHERITED CAPITAL) IN A SOCIETY
BASED ON CONTRACTS BETWEEN EQUALS.

The
equal human right to living

(A
reconceptualization of the right to life)

The
liberal societal model based on the individualistic value-order was
developed by the Western Enlightenment – in the XVIIth century
by Locke and Pufendorf and in the XVIIth by Rousseau and Kant –
in opposition to the authority of the aristocracy and clergy[i].

This
model recognizes an order based only on the equal right to life of
all individuals and on their freely concluded – market-like –
contracts and commitments. In this manner man is born into a society
where social discrimination will not hurt equal opportunity for
anyone. (Of course, the society has nothing to say about biologically
inherited abilities. It is concerned only with treating people
differently according to social criteria such as nobility, but also,
in principle, to inherited capital wealth.) The secularist
doctrine postulates that this reasoning agrees with natural human
rationality, and therefore the rights methodically deduced from these
principles are inalienable, in line with the requirements of natural
law[ii].
They are universal because: (a) they concur with the intuitive
normative predisposition of all human beings; (b) they are
deduced from basic axioms and therefore they are eo
ipsoin
harmony among themselves; and (c) the state itself is nothing more
than an instrument constituted as an association by the free will of
autonomous individuals. (According to Hobbes, the state exists for
self-preservation and protection.)

Historically,
authors often stated falsely that the concept of human rights was
first formulated in the English Magna Carta of 1215. In reality, the
Carta’s human rights concern not all human beings but only
individuals according to their social function or rank. The
recognition of the nobles’ prerogatives was the issue.[iii]

Now
in our time, when mankind has at its disposal the technical means –
in communication and transport - to construct a unified world
civilization, it is very timely to study the universal validity and
the applicability of the societal model offered by the West. The
institutional appearance of this doctrine is the U.N.’s
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948, when the
winning powers needed to give a moral backing to their success.
This catalogue of rights draws upon the French Declaration of Human
and Civil Rights of 1789. In 1966 the U.N. produced two binding
international treaties. First we examine how declared human rights
conform to the basic liberal principles, then how the rights are in
agreement among themselves. Where agreement is absent, we look for
meta-principles that establish an order of precedence. As noted, John
Locke didn’t give guidance on this question, since the
believers in natural law presuppose an accord among them. However,
general experience doesn’t confirm a general harmony. For
paradigmatical reasons we give a high priority to the study of the
relation between the right to life – to man’s
existence - and to private property (including transmission of
capital fortune by inheritance).

After
this normative reasoning we compare the principles resulting from
these ideas with the real conditions of mankind in order to see their
practical relevancy. Again, for paradigmatical reasons among the
anthropological conditions, we lay particular emphasis on the
implications of the fact that the human being – in
contrast to some animal species - is not born as an independent
self-made man but as a helpless “unweaned baby,”
dependent on a preexisting civilizational context. (The biblical Adam
is the sole exception.) Indeed, obviously before men can constitute
their society by free contract, all are exposed to the assistance and
spiritual influence of adults. As a species capable of speaking, men
will become members of a society by learning their mother tongue. So
before the adolescent can contract freely, the educators of the
little fellows give them a world outlook for coexistence and
cooperation with their parents, siblings, neighbors, fellow citizens,
with men in general, with other animals, and with the whole of
animate and inanimate nature.

Two
fundamental issues arise: 1) under these circumstances is it possible
to base all human relations exclusively on free contracting among
equals and 2) is the unearned inheritance of capital fortune
compatible with the equality of all newborn individuals and their
equal opportunity?

Willy-nilly,
the Western worldview originating and outlined in the Enlightenment
is only one of the existing[iv]
world conceptions (even as the West, in occupied territories like
Afghanistan, offers to assume the children’s education, putting
them in school at a young age in order to form them in their Western
libertarian likeness). Namely, the neoliberal globalism considers the
value order of other civilizations on the premise that its own value
order is rational and all others are archaic. It postulates its own
value order as paradigmatic for the future and that, in the course of
time, it will eclipse the others [v].
Yet, the pragmatic value of Western humanism for the prospective
society can be evaluated only by answering the question of whether it
fits well with the inescapable condition of man.

For
example, in the eyes of those in the West who were socialized in an
extreme anthropo- and self-centered[vi]
spirit, all living beings that have neither soul nor the faculty of
speech can be considered as simple means. For an ego-centered world
view this handling of the external environment as a means can also
extend to other human beings as well as to all of society.[vii]
According to John Locke, an individual perceives himself by
introspection and relates first to his environment by taking
possession of property; consequently private property precedes
the society.[viii] Now if we
consider an individual born and raised in a Hindu nest, his first
idea will not be to transform his environment by economic activity,
as a Westerner will do, but to look for how he might adapt himself to
the universe. (The Hindu and the Buddhist[ix]
will consider our rediscovery of the legal status of animals as an
improvised rehearsal of eternal principles.)

According
to our working plan we examine first the doctrinal base of the human
rights system; then we study the case of the right to private
property and that of the right to living; how these rights are in
harmony with the UDHR; then with the two binding international
treaties; and finally their relative ranking. We evaluate the
societal implication of the extension of private property to the
right to inherited capital. In the end, we discuss the question
whether, on the pragmatic level, the liberal individualistic societal
model necessarily meets the development of the helpless newborn human
being better than the value order of other civilizations.

In
this study we are concerned with the social-political implications
of fundamental observations that we can make concerning all
individual human beings and their societies.In
the light of these observations the contribution of the Enlightenment
to the world's "epistemological progress" seems dubious.
The
original intent oftheWestern
Enlightenment wasto
liberate mankind from unfounded prejudices and bias. But in reality
the liberal social contract is based on the anthropologicallynaive
idea of "self-made", "self-created"
men - in the
broadestsense
of the term. This is an
unrealisticutopia
thatthe
West tries to present as universally valid, and therefore imposes it
also onother
spheres of civilization by the strait jacket of colonialization.

We
begin our reasoning in
medias res. The
founders of individualistic liberalism - John Locke, Adam Smith,
Jean-Jacques Rousseau - try to (re-)constitute human society based
on contracting
between free andindependent
parties. For them, in general, the reciprocal ("horizontal")
relation - exchange - should be the typical "median" ground
relation that fundamentally constitutes society. (This ideal-typical
mental experimentation is also beyond John Rawls' Theory
of Justice. Harvard
UP, Cambridge, 1971.) The Enlightened will free society from
"tribal" links and create a universal model of society
comprising independent, responsible, free human
beings. In principle, the enlightened society should be based on the
empirical observation of Nature (of mankind) and not on
some farfetched daydreaming.

-
In reality, because ofthe
characteristic (anthropo-)biological
conditionsof
the human species, contractual relations - deals between equal, free,
and responsible partners based on consensus - are notand
cannot
otherwisebe
the first
perceived (human)
relation. Without touching the question ofhow
the human race - as such - came intoexistence,
in general, the newborn man's first experienced relation
subordinate
to and dependent onhis
breeder. This exposed, helpless situation creates the prototypical
human relation (perhaps a "tribal" onein the
broader sense of the term, since the upbringing can be done
institutionally, orperhaps
separately from the blood-relationship). What is essential isthat
this primary relation is not a reciprocal contracting market-like
relation.(In
the human race the newborn's brain is only 30 % of that of an
adult. Kate Wong: Humans Give Birth to Helpless Babies. In:
Scientific
American.
28.8.2012.)

No human
individual comes into the world free and
self-supporting (by the way, without his self-will). All become
full-fledged adults after an
unavoidable commitment to the (pre)existing society. In reality, not
a single human society is ceated from
nothing.

All
these statements seem commonplace, truisms, butnevertheless
neglected in the liberal reconstruction of the society. The
market-based, modern model of society, the idea of a society composed
strictly ofcontracts
among independent (self-created) individuals, glosses overthe
basic factual biological condition of mankind. It is a
product of pureimagination.

Society
with all its attributes should exist before the human being becomes
adult and able
toconclude
contracts freely between equal parties. A whole society comprisingequal
adults who encounterone
another by chance, without tribal attachment, looking for initial
cooperation, is a myth, a cock and bull story as is the legend of the
twins, Romulusand
Remus, suckled by a she-wolf. This and similar fairy-tales exist to
corroborate, to "prove", that the first relation between
human beings could be equal and not inter-generational.

Indeed,
general experience shows that most human relations don't originate
from a chance human encounter in a marketplace between individuals
without existing deep "antecedent relations". For this very
reason to declare that the model of the human society should be fully
based on contracts among free
and equalindividuals
is unrealistic (in the best case, utopian).
The "discovery" of contractsbetween
equal individuals as an ideal for society, put
forthby,among
others, Herbert Spencer in his Sociology(T.
III, 5) and J.J. Rousseau in his Contrat
Social(Librio,
Paris, 2015, 13) in the XVIII century (cf., André Lalande
Vocabulaire
de la philosophie, PUF,
Paris, 1962, 185), cannot bring so-called progress, since the
declaration, the positing of this idea itself doesn't transform the
main natural (anthropological) parameters of mankind. (Only perhaps a
biological discovery thatwould
allow the human being to be immediately independent - in statu
nascenti-
as aresome
other breeds orspecies
of animals - would bring a societal change.) All efforts to base the
constitution of human society mainly on "horizontal"
market-contracts, deals between equal anonymous individuals,
is ahistorical. "We
are born late into history that is well under way."For
biological reasons-
necessarily - all societies exist only in continuity.

Instead
of scrutinizing the imagination of some reputed authors again, we
examine here directly the variety of human relations thatconstitute
observable human societies. This concise study is based on our work
Global
Communication without Universal Civilization (INUPRESS,
Geneva,
2000, 501)
and
our article The Relativity of Human Rights within the era of society
based on contracts between equals (International
Journal of Human Rights. London,
Sept. 2011, 14-36).

We
look now at
whatrelations
a human being must bear before he can have horizontal trade between
free andequal
individuals.

The
lineage,
therelation
between mother and child, is the foremost one, which itself is
already a continuation of the previous relation between a mother and
father. New scientific research showsthat
the apprenticeship of mother
tongue-
regardingits
phonetic articulation andpronunciation
- begins evenin themother's
womb. This first human relation integrates the infant eo
ipso progressively
in a determined
language community.
Even if this mother-child relation could be undoneby
foster parents, the mother-child relation remains the typical, "mean"
relation involving inherited qualities. ( Biological research will
advance anddeepen
these considerationsbut
the in
vitrobirth
will remain an exceptional human artifice for circumventingNature.)
Language is a social phenomenon;
therefore, by way of native language, belonging to a speech community
will be an inalienable (cultural) part of the identity of each
individual.

- The
first declared effort of the Enlightened Days was toabolish
the "caste", the nobility with its entitled inherited
prerogatives. However, this "noble egalitarian" idea
becomes a simple maneuver between social classes if the right of
material inheritance remains intact. The
new order simply concentrates - implicitly
and essentially - the
privilegeson
moneyed classes, called thecapitalist
class. This opensan
econocraticera.

The
most liberal philosophers became the apologists of the
econocratic societal systems of capitalism under the regime of aformal
(procedural) equality of individuals. One of the prominent
contemporary apologists
of this order, John Rawls, wrote: "The unequal inheritance of
wealth is no more inherently unjust than the unequal inheritance of
intelligence." (John Rawls: A
Theory of Justice.
Belcamp Press, Cambridge MA, 1978, 278.) Of course, Rawls as an
enlightened author can't address this argument to God but to the
society, and since the right of inheritance of wealth is man made and
that of intelligence not, this thesis is untenable. Rawls himself
addscasually
thatthe
inheritance of wealth "is presumably (?) more easily subject to
social control."

-
Indeed, beyond the giving
of nurture,
the relation of lineage, the battle for collective subsistence,
creates economic
relations:
production, cooperation and exchange. This could be composed of
horizontal market-relations.
It became the prototypical model for the Enlightened constitution of
the last centuries in Western civilization. If the
(inheritable) capital - means of production and even natural
resources - accumulates in some private hands and the others
relyonly
on their capacity for work, we have a capitalistic system.

-
As mentioned, the biological fundamentals of thehuman
species oblige us to recognize that human society can't be
(re)constituted uniquely
as
a networkof
equal anonymous partners encountered inthe
market-place for an exchange (perhaps resulting from the professional
division of labor in the society). The relation resulting from
lineage is preexistent.

Beyond
the natural necessary relationshipbetween
the "rising generation" and the adult
onethere
is another- more
comprehensive, not transversal but "longitudinal" -
generational relation. For the continuity and change in history we
can speak also about aninter-generational
relation, thoughthis
is not to be
confused withthe
actual relation between adult and adolescent. Indeed, thehuman
race
doesn’tproceedin
interrupted succession - as with some seasonal animals - but as a
continuity,even
if from
time to time catastrophes
createdisruptions.

This
is a succession of (adult) generations thatshould
be distinguished from relations resulting from the coexisting adult
and adolescent, since the mentality of youth as
such from
that of anadult
is different. Thus, this can be called therelation
between parent and child,
while that between successive generations (of adult cohorts) can be
called ahistoricalone.

At
least in the Neolithic age, - around 6000 years ago, - the
historical dialogue is assured mostly by (ideographic or phonetic)
scribal
tradition.

Communities
thatare
comprehesiveenoughin
time and space toconstitute
a relatively permanent self-sufficient entity, can
be calledcivilizations.
Each perpetuates a cumulative"collective
knowledge" andhas a
common consciousness based on accepted evidenceand
memory of general observation. The imperfection of knowledge is
completed by beliefs.

Value
orders are neither innate nor universal but civilizationally
immanent. They vary according to time and space. It is just the
different rankings of values that characterizethe
various civilizations. (See
G. Ankerl: Tolerance: Variation of the Concept According to Different
Civilizations. Democracy
and Tolerance.Paris
UNESCO, 1995. Pp. 59-78.)

(Some
successions in value orders could be interpreted as "progress"
or "decadence", as normless libertarian decomposition is
frequently the last phase of an era of civilization.)

Because
of all the given determinants of all human societies by (impotent)
birth and nurture, "rational choice theory cannot provide auniversal
theory
of human behavior." (C. Duncan Watts: Everything
is Obvious. Atlantic.
London, 2011, 252 ). A (realistic) constitution cannotbeconstructed
on the premise that human society is composed solely from
calculated cooperative-associative acts of aheteronomous
set of individuals, independent of their various origins.
The liberal constitution is an arbitrary dream based on "curtailed
reality".

-
Present Western thought triesto
invalidate all non individualistically based (non market-oriented)
societal constitutionsby
"archaizing" them. Indeed, non-Western contemporary
civilizational spheres are ranged in one epistemological
agglomeration, ready forcolonialization
by New Imperialism, as
doesthe
London University with the School of Oriental and (!) African Studies
(SOAS).

The
postulated value orders of societies are civilisationally
immanent. The continuity of a civilization is assumed, anchoredby its
scribal
tradition
(phoneticor
ideographic) inherited and accepted by the "newcomers" - as
noted, again unilaterally - from the past. The human being-
in
addition tothe
newborn-parent relation experience - isalso
nested in the scribal
tradition of
the civilization intowhich
he is born.

We can
conclude that only a very limited number of the whole set of human
relations can be ruled by a constitutional principle of
(market-like) egalitarian exchanges that
resultfrom
so-called rational human behaviors. The contemporary globalist
societal doctrine, the individualistic economism, is a "dystopia".
The
humanbeing
is not free-floating. The "omnimobile" individual's
whole personality is enveloped ina halo
of his particular lineage, his mother tongue and scribal tradition
largely defining his individual identity by external determinants,
outside hisself-will
(own free will). The world can
notbe
reconstituted from a set of anonymousstrangers'
self-projects.

A
fundamental misconception of individualistic, egalitarian, liberalist
social reform is that it tries to obliterate the (anthropological,
cultural) differences, the
givens ofgrown-ups
of the human race, instead of simplyfighting
against all kinds of supremacism.
The simple ascertainment of anthropological, cultural differences in
the organization of the society can't be condemned as racist
or sexist.
Only the arbitrary hierarchical categorization of human beings
could be theobject
of reasonable debate. (L. and F. Cavalli-Sforza: Qui
sommes-nous? Une histoire de al diversité humaine. Abin
Michel, Paris1994. D. Reich:
Who
we are and How We Got Here.Oxford
, Oxford UP, 2018.) And in this sense, in our Western civilization,
even the (inherited) economic situation of human beings is theobject
of gross - non procedural but de
facto
daily - latent and even open discrimination.

**************************************************************

THE
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF THE SOCIETAL MODEL BASED ON CONTRACTS
CONCLUDED BETWEEN EQUAL INDIVIDUALS

Now
we develop briefly the basic normative requirements derived from
theenlightened societal model that disregards divine revelation. We
abstract from the consideration that this model is perhaps unreal
from an anthropo-social viewpoint. Rawls, in his classic work[x]
with reference to Locke, Rousseau and Kant, elaborated his general
theory - “justice as fairness” - and as
“ideal-regarding principle”. It supposes a “hypothetical”
“well-defined (!?) initial situation” in which
“independent” and not “heteronymous” (cf.,
Kant) individuals make contracts[xi].
(It is strictly speaking an exchange or commutative justice theory
derived from the market situation extended to the constitution of the
whole society[xii] and state.
Looking now again at the newborn human being’s initial
situation, - and the saying “We are born into history
that is well under way” – it is clear that the whole
society with all its connections could not be reconstructed
exclusively by exchange contracts.)

1.The
first epistemological definition of the individual as an ego
is self-consciousness. Independently, whether a Self comes from a
homozygote twin or is a true unique individual, he is exclusively the
concrete location of perceptions and feelings. This prime “vécu”
can be perceived only personally, subjectively from the interior
existence. Even Max Weber’s pioneering “verstehende”
sociology could reconstitute someone else’s inner mental
processes only indirectly by analogy involving all its
epistemological uncertainty. This is the individual’s - the
subject’s - inevitable primacy.

2.
Each person, their plurality, everybody has the right to life, to
existence, to living, to subsistence. This right has an ontological
primacy; it is a substantial sine qua non condition for any
other human attributes or disposing powers. (Aristotle speaks about
the being and his property.) We can say that if this right
contradicts any other right – for example the right to private
capital or property or its inheritability - it should always enjoy a
priority.

Let
us explore an issue of definition and terminology that involves
serious implications. If we will be truly precise in the formulation
of the right to life, we should say “living human being’s
right to existence.” This expression is a ponderous one but not
without purpose. As opposed to the elegant expression “right to
life”, it grasps the substance of the concept in its entirety.
The right to life without a careful interpretation will be seen in an
incomplete manner; namely, as with other rights – such as
private property – it will be understood in a passive,
defensive manner, simply as a right not to be killed, tortured, or
illegally executed. However, unlike the nature of inanimate
substances, life is a process. The right to life makes no sense
without involving how life will be sustained. (If the Rechtsstaat
left through indifference some people to die by starvation, the right
to life in this state is not respected.) The fundamental point here
is the complete definition of the right to life. We can add special
human dimensions to the right to life, the right to existence proper
to living beings endowed with the faculty of speech. Since the right
to livelihood is an inseparable part of the right to life, we will
use alternately the term right to “life”, to “living”,
to “existence” or “subsistence” as the
context requires.

Contrary
to slavery and vassalage, the liberal bourgeois view proclaimed the
individual’s “liberty” and
“self-determination”.[xiii]
According to the U.S. Declaration of Independence of 1776 it is
self-evident that (a) all men are created equal, (b) have the right
to life, (c) to freedom and (d) to pursuit of happiness. Johannes
Kaspar Schmidt, alias Max Stirner, in his Der
Einzelne und sein Eigentum (1844)
examined this issue thoroughly. The liberal position from the outset
relates the individual’s independent existence to private
property, which includes the individual himself as well as the
necessary environment for his subsistence.[xiv]

3.
The equalright
is an essential foundation of the liberal model. By definition, all
individuals have the same rights; inversely, if a right can’t
be provided to everybody, it becomes a privilege and can’t be a
“natural” subjective right due to everyone. The principle
of equality puts limits on the spontaneous “self-evident”
private possession of the individual’s environment. Indeed, the
possession of natural resources, which are available only in limited
quantities, is mortgaged by everyone’s right to access a source
of livelihood. This universal prerogative - like the absolute (land)
rent – presents all private properties as mortgaged. The
disposition of national resources - as Clifford Hugh Douglas stated
in 1919 – should be viewed as shares or dividends belonging to
everyone.

According
to the liberal societal model the individual’s equal and
independent existence enjoys –at least conceptually –
a natural priority. This is the posited initial principle for the
constitution. The state or other social formations exist only as a
function of the freely contracted obligations of responsible
individuals,[xv] and
consequently they dispose only on definite, transferred competency.
(According to Rawls, man gives up some of his prerogatives –
except the inalienable human rights - for security and some economic
advantages.) In this perspective the state can’t be considered
as a given fact. In its nature the state constitution isn’t
different from a market contract or agreement.

4.
The social philosophers who conceived the capitalist society were
concerned especially with the prior right to private
property – transferable
by inheritance – and in relation to the state. Although the
respect for private property has a biblical basis, these philosophers
eliminated from their vision the divine creation, and were therefore
obliged to look for other rational justifications for the natural
right to property. Among the thinkers of the Enlightenment there is
no consensus concerning that question of whether we can or cannot
speak about rights in general before the existence of the state. The
issue remains open how to distinguish in a secularized perspective
between a moral requirement and a right without enforcement by a
state.[xvi]

The
individual right to property in its abstract general form appears to
provide (a) privacy and (b) an external condition for sustaining
oneself. (My house is my castle.) It should be immediately stated
that according to equal rights, the private property necessary for
privacy should concern only such objects that could be guaranteed for
everybody[xvii]. (Compare a
household farm plot with capital in money.)

One
of the founders of Anglo-American common law (and constitutionalism),
John Locke – and Samuel Pufendorf too – presupposes such
natural rights exist before the state and enjoy precedence in
relation to the state. The emphasis goes immediately to the “natural”
possession of the environment by the property right and not to each
person’s right to existence[xviii].

As
Locke postulates the individual right to property as a natural right,
he doesn’t do it by considering the other’s possible
claims in a context of distributive justice[xix].
He considers only the right of an individual to possess, master, make
use of his non-human environment. The initial situation is well
illustrated in Daniel Defoe’s fiction, Robinson
Crusoe.
By the way, Rousseau recommends the reading of this work in his
Émile.

On
closer scrutiny Locke’s conceptualization shows that he
extrapolated the general right to all kinds of private property from
a particular historical situation, namely at the frontier of English
colonization. In the American Wild West, the immigrants found fallow
land. Since these lands were unlimited, boundless and available, the
immigrant became owner of an “abundance of land” which
had no market value by its rarity. The lot became valuable when he
weeded it. The right to the fruit of his work became inseparable from
the land and he fenced off this lot from the land of native
Indians.[xx] In reality, the
right concerned effectively the fruits of his labor. From this
particular legal situation Locke, on one hand, generalized the right
to private property to all accumulated, “intangible”
goods like capital, and on the other hand, he introduced tacitly the
right to property by inheritance (even if it is for the heir an
“effortless wealth”). The arbitrary nature of this right
is characterized well by Robert Dahl.[xxi]

Ownership
transferred by inheritance reveals a lot about the liberal
interpretation of individual right to property; namely, on one hand,
this “money-making” is not preceded by an individual
effort, and on the other hand, some individual already in
statu nascenti becomes
proprietor of such a fortune that he can live his whole life without
working. By this “freedom” the heirs have the advantage
of a good start.[xxii]

Let
us see, after condemning racial, sexual and many other forms of
discrimination, how the late John Rawls categorizes the differences
of inherited wealth. In his already quoted work, entitled modestly A
Theory of Justice, he states that the inequality of inheritance
is no more unjust than that of intelligence The range of
discrimination resulting from succession compared with that of nature
could be acceptable for a submissive religious man but not for a
secular free-thinker, since one discrimination is natural and the
other social and man-made.

In
order to avoid a shocking effect of this categorization Rawls adds
reluctantly the remark that the inheritance could possibly be an
object of social control. He says this control is not necessary
“provided that the resulting inequalities are to the advantage
of the least fortunate and compatible with liberty and fair equality
of opportunity.” [xxiii]
It is clear that assuming these conditions is not obvious. Rawls
doesn’t explain precisely how “equality of opportunity”
can be realized. He says also vaguely that the basic institutions of
the society are in danger, if difference in wealth goes beyond some
limits[xxiv] (cf.,
concentration of capital).

In
sum, following the previous reasoning, we can state that the
legitimacy of the individual right to property is not on the same
level of preeminence as everybody’s equal right to existence.
The right to private “possession” is deduced from the
fact that man should master nature. Private ownership is
pragmatically justified by the hypothesis that postulates that
comparatively it provides the best exploitation of natural resources
and a result that will be useful for everybody[xxv].

After
establishing that in a consequent liberal doctrine the individual
right to property does not have the same prime legal standing as
everybody’s right to existence, we also state immediately that
the “privacy-argument” supporting the right of private
property can’t be applied uniformly as it is often done by
application of Roman Law. As we will see, the right should vary
according to the form, scale, or aspect of the property. It cannot be
indifferent to whether the object is a family house or intangible
mobile capital, and that the legal bearer, the “individual”
proprietor, is a physical person, an individual or a corporate body.

THE
APPLICATION OF LIBERAL PRINCIPLES IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS SYSTEM:
CONCORDANCE OR RANKING OF THE RIGHT TO EXISTENCE AND THE RIGHT TO
PRIVATE PROPERTY

(The
priority of the human right to living)

Even
if an ideal-typical liberal conception of society based solely on
contracts between self-created, adult and responsible individuals is
unhistorical and does not match human reality, we can still think
about it. Now we call to account the consequent application of
the liberal principles in international legislation. Namely, the
charter of the U.N. refers to these principles. The Preamble to this
constitution was the first in history to use the term ”human
rights”. Based on this charter The Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (UDHR)[xxvi]
was elaborated in 1948. Mary Ann Gledon, law professor at Harvard
University, describes how four thinkers, - René Cassin, the
Lebanese, and Charles Malik (both specialists in the
Israeli-Palestinian issue), the American educated, Chinese native
Peng-Chun Chang, and Eleanor Roosevelt, president of the commission -
composed the right catalogue in the shadow of the commotion of the
Second World War. The UDHR adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on
10. December 1948 enumerates 30 basic human rights. Its survey shows
that this catalogue – despite its loftily worded title - is not
exhaustive and doesn’t bear the marks of axiomatic composition.
It reflects without doubt the value order of the victorious
Anglo-Saxon powers, while the Vienna Declaration of 1993 embodies a
more “plural grounding”[xxvii],
the plurality of the value order of the diverse (co)existing
civilizations. Despite this fact the system of universal human rights
is represented as being unified and indivisible, and therefore there
remains no place for ranking them. The U.N. “unity
resolution” in 1966 and all further U.N. declarations - like
the just mentioned Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action -
confirm the unity, equivalence and inseparability of human rights.
This position doesn’t leave space for the rights’
ranking; however in the international “legislation” and
in the requirement of the application we find de
factoinequalities,
priorities and neglects.

It
is striking that the various international human rights watch
organizations – emanating from the West - are primarily
preoccupied with respect for free speech – and right to freedom
- and less with the poverty-stricken indigents’ living
conditions. When in 1998 Mary Robinson, then president of the U.N.’s
human rights commission, exposed that in spite of a permanent solemn
confirmation of the equivalence of human rights, the respect for
economic and social rights are less strictly called to account. The
liberal vice-president of the European Parliament, Berthal Haarder,
wrote in the New
York Times[xxviii]that
despite the unity declaration of Vienna all human rights do not have
equal importance, since for example contrary to political rights the
respect for the right to work could not be strictly required.
Glendon also says in her already mentioned book that in the affluent
West we tend to concentrate criticism on the rights we don’t
violate, - such as torture and slavery, - but we don’t say much
about freedom from hunger and deprivation. As we will see later, at
the same time, the right to life is interpreted in a narrow manner
and separated from the right to subsistence, yet the U.N.
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of
1966 (ICESCR) in the second point of its article 11.2
recognizes the right to be “free from hunger”[xxix]
as a basic human right.

The
human rights workshops supported by the U. N. and held in New York
and Hong Kong also expressed the opinion that from the liberal
viewpoint political rights are overemphasized over the right to have
an adequate standard of living (ICESCR 11.1), and the right to
living, according to human decency, is not adequately monitored.
Although the issue here is “who will live and who will die”,
the international human rights watch organizations, Amnesty
International and Freedom House, neglect this aspect of human rights
and have a “misguided priority” [xxx]

In
the Preamble of the UDHR the U. N. states that the “equal and
inalienable human rights” are due to “all members of the
human family”. The two first articles prescribe brotherhood and
equality without discrimination, while the third article declares,
beside the right to liberty and security, the right to life. The §17
declares in general terms everyone’s “right to own
property alone as well as in association with others.”

Let
us look now more deeply into these articles.

According
to the exposed basic principles of liberal doctrine (a) every human
being has (b) the right to existence. This is so strongly a prime
ontological principle that the right to private property can only be
considered later mainly as a means to achieve the right to living;
otherwise it can curtail somebody’s right to living.

If
we compare how these two rights could be exercised, for the right to
private property it is enough to declare passively the free exclusive
right to disposal.[xxxi] In
the West according to mainly prevailing Roman law and British Common
Law, the property right is provided by the fact that the state –
by force, if necessary —should prevent every hindrance to its
free disposal. In the UDHR the right to life is also associated with
the idea that it is enough to hinder any violent extinguishing of
life. However if we compare the right to property and that to life we
can observe their fundamental difference. While well-protected
property is enduring, life expires by itself in time, even without
violent intervention. For an effective right to life it is not enough
to restate the biblical principle “not to kill”. The
right to life does not exist without the guarantee of the means to
its continuous subsistence. For this very reason Article 22 mentions
the right to ”social security”, the § 23 the right
to work and the § 25 the right to adequate “standard of
living”. When the supposed exclusive private ownership of land
or other means of production excludes others from exercising their
right to livelihood, to work, - we can say - the entitlement
to lifehas
priority over the right to private property.

The
UDHR of 1948 is an authoritative, benchmark document, but it is not a
legally binding instrument. It can’t be called an International
Human Rights Law[xxxii]. In
the following decade the U.N. began to construct a legally binding
international covenant. But meanwhile it became clear that because of
the divergent interests and views of the different states belonging
to various spheres of civilization there was not a spontaneous
unanimity in the Assembly. The Western powers tried to limit the
treaty to handle the political rights, while the former colonies and
the socialist states tried to extend the treaty to the conditions of
living. Therefore in 1966 the accepted international covenants
resulted from a compromise: on one hand, the U. N. declared in the
“unity resolution” the inseparability of the rights; on
the other hand, the rights were not included in one but in two
covenants - a political and civil, and another economic, social and
cultural. Both have been accepted by the U.N. Assembly
(2200A[xxi]) December 16; however it remained open that some
countries accepted and ratified only one of the two covenants. There
is also a difference in the formulation of the two covenants: the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is
expressed in mandatory terms, while the rights of the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) –
often called second generation rights - are formulated in conditional
terms as simple aspirations which should be realized if the resources
are available.[xxxiii]
Characteristically the U.S. didn’t ratify the ICESCR. We can
infer that the Western powers with the U.S. first in line indirectly
ranked the basic human rights.

We
examine now how the necessary rights for existence are present in the
first and in the second covenant.

Both
covenants lay down in the first article of the first part two basic
principles: (§ 1.1) All people’s right to
self-determination as well as (§ 1.2) the people’s right
to free disposal of their natural wealth; and that “in no case
may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.” The
same principles are confirmed in § 47 of the ICCPR and in §
25 of the ICESCR. These principles are essential for the effective
exercise and enforcement of the citizen’s right to living. The
people’s declared right to the natural wealth existing in the
country’s sovereign territory provides a kind of absolute land
rent to secure the citizen’s subsistence. This is in line with
the previously mentioned idea of Clifford Hugh Douglas about a
dividend for every citizen derived from the use of natural resources.
This prerogative has priority over the right to private property.
(Note that the “right to own property” declared in the
article 17 of the UDHR has not been repeated in either of the two
international covenants of 1966.) This is a cardinal point, since it
actualizes the requirement for the right to subsistence.

The
ICCPR reproduces in 6. article that of the § 3. of the UDHR
concerning the right to life, while the 6. article of the ICESCR
states the right to work derived from the right to earn a living.
Article 11. goes further since it posits the right to living in
general, which also includes that of the disabled.

We
can state that the two legally binding international Covenants give
priority to the citizens’ right to subsistence (consequently
their right to necessary access to the means of production) over the
right to private property or capital equipment goods. We also can
state that when the various human rights watch organizations are
primarily concerned about the political rights and the freedom of the
press and not the right to subsistence[xxxiv],
they don’t act in the spirit of the two international covenants
of human rights but to please the Western powers and the capital
owners.

The
right to life in a broad sense[xxxv]
means the “entitlement” to living. It includes all
the have-nots. It embraces the right to living, the right to work, as
well as an annuity for every disabled citizen derived from the use of
the national wealth, and the right to work as a minimal expression of
right to living. Historically the recognition of right to work goes
back to the International Labor Organization (I.L.O.) founded by the
League of Nations. To counterbalance the constitution of the
Communist International in Moscow in March 1919, the I.L.O.
formulated the right to work in a manner that is compatible with
private property as the means of production. By the way, the I.L.O.
was the only specialized organization that survived the League and
became in 1946 the first specialized organization of the U.N. The
I.L.O.’s[xxxvi]
inspiration is present in the two international human rights
covenants and in the Charter of the U.N. in § 55, which promotes
the full employment.

In
the legislation of Western countries, the comprehensive right to
private property compared to the right to work is expressed as a
priority. The I.L.O.’s studies show that in the present
societal framework full employment cannot be realized by the labor
market and self-employment alone. The state or other non-profit
agencies must fulfill the labor demand. While the Soviet Union
realized grosso modo full employment, it involved grave
consequences. Not only all private property as a means of production
was suppressed but the free choice of workplace, and in general the
self-determination of individuals. Individual autonomy became
almost an unknown concept.

The
two international human rights covenants that originated from the
Western world of thought claim universal validity. However, following
their adoption in 1966, in a pragmatic way, other spheres of
civilization conceived their own human rights declarations, which
integrated the value orders of their own traditions alongside the
sole application of the individualist contractarian societal model.
They try to put individual rights in relation to social obligations.
Since man is born helpless without self-determination his rights are
necessarily embedded in the rights of the family and other
collectives. It seems necessary to involve communitarian aspects in
the human rights conception against the West’s dazzling
individualism.

It
is not without interest to remind the reader of article 23. of the
ICCPR, which states: “The family is the natural and fundamental
group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and
the State.” Again, respect for the stipulation of this
article doesn’t much interest the Western human rights watch
organizations. Today Islam is especially preoccupied with the unique
role of marriage and family in man’s procreating and sexual
life.

Let’s
now examine some regional human rights declarations. Within the
Western sphere of civilization in 1950, - and before 1966, - the
Council of Europe concluded a covenant about fundamental human rights
that allows, - optionally and among others, - an individual to bring
a case to the European Court against his own government. We also can
add that the first complementary protocol of the treaty recognizes in
the most general terms the right to private property, while the
European Social charter, promulgated in 1965, mentions the right to
work in a facultative and diluted form.[xxxvii]

When
the Organization of the American States (O.A.S.) was formed in April
1948 in Bogotá, the American Declaration concerning Human
Rights and Obligations was attached to the Charter. This declaration
is not a legally binding document. In 1969 the American Human Rights
treaty was established (c.f. ICCPR); in 1988, a complementary
protocol about the economic, social and cultural rights (cf.,
ICESCR), and in 1990, a protocol suppressing capital punishment. The
most important member of O.A.S., the U.S., didn’t ratify the
three treaties, nor did the ICESCR.[xxxviii]
The commission to provide respect for human rights has only an
adductory and advisory function.

Outside
the Western sphere of civilization, the Organization of African Unity
- today it is called the African Union and includes 53 member states
- drafted in 1979 and adopted in 1981 the African Charteron
Human andPeoples'
Rights.This
charter recognizes the individual’s right to migrate (§
12), but it doesn’t conceive of the individual’s right
apart from its rootedness in the collective. The second chapter
posits the individual’s social obligations. It doesn’t
rank political and social-economic rights but attaches particular
attention to the latter.[xxxix]
Respect for the prescription of the African human rights charter is
not guaranteed by a continent-wide court, but only by the consensus
of the states. Fundamentally, the cause of human rights remains an
internal affair of the states.[xl]
By the way, we can raise the question: beside the common burden of
European colonization and the physical-geographical unity, what
characteristics are held in common between northern-African Arab
Algeria and the south Africa converted to Christianity?

And
what about Asian human rights? Two decades ago, there was a lot of
talk about it. Interestingly an important initiative came from one
specific region. The former prime minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan
Yew, the erudite Singaporean diplomat of Indian origin, Kishore
Mahbubani[xli], as well as the
former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Muhammad encouraged the
idea. Indeed, the Malaysian Confederation, after two years of
existence, broke up in 1965 chiefly on an ethnic basis. However the
problem remained that half of the population of the new Islamic
Republic of Malaysia continued to be not Muslim but Chinese and
Hindu. It served the interest of the unity of these states to
popularize the idea of a uniform Asian value order and a human rights
system derived from it. Meanwhile, the West accused its propagandists
of using the idea to cover up the authoritarian nature of these
political regimes. As a matter of fact, Asianvalues
and human rights are a false concern. It is a debate without cause,
since it is objectless. Asia as a point of reference for a
civilization that is non-existent. The geographical entity cut out
since ancient times from Eurasia is not based on some civilizational
uniformity. It covers roughly the artificial concept of ‘East’,
which became a metaphor for designing one of the hunting grounds of
Western colonization.[xlii]
Concerning guiding ideas, Asia is composed of Hindu, Buddhist,
Confucian and Muslim thoughts, which have no unified common ground in
contrast to Western Christianity.

Nevertheless,
in the last decades some Asian regional organizations have been
established: in 1967 the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
(ASEAN); in 1985 the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation
(SAARC). While in 1981 the CCASG brought together the Arab States of
the of the - Persian/Arab - Gulf. And in 2002 the sole comprehensive
Asian organization, the Asian Cooperation Dialogue (ACD), came into
being.

The
objectives of these organizations are in general the promotion of
economic development and the achievement of a position from which
they can negotiate with the West on equal terms. Their charters don’t
have a special chapter about human rights but the rights issue is
embedded in the system of objectives of economic, social and cultural
progress. Because of their cultural diversity, the member states
don’t meddle in the internal affairs of other states, and,
except in uncommon cases, respect for human rights remains the
states’ internal affair.

The
Western human rights watch organizations, swarming out of New York,
are particularly preoccupied with eliminating the hindrance to the
diffusion of the global media, and often criticize the non-Western
regional organizations that are more concerned with economic human
rights than with the individual’s political rights and basic
freedom.

We
will discuss shortly in the last part of our study the “universal”
and “regional” aspects of human rights in a broader
realization-focused basis. Note that unfortunately the regionalist
praxis of the U. N. itself doesn’t help to approach the human
rights issue in a larger less Western-centered way. Indeed, the
U.N.’s regional divisions don’t reflect spheres of
civilization that could eventually be characterized by some
deep-rooted doctrinal traditions like Hindu, universist Chinese,
Arabo-Muslim as well as Western. The groupings follow mainly
physical-geographical ones, and even, from time to time, recent
political divisions like the so-called East-European group of former
Soviet satellite countries. These divisions also have no direct
denominative civilization content.

The
anti-racist treaty, the so-called treaty of emancipation, of 20
December 1965 constitutes an exception (2106/A XX). In its 4-8
articles the U.N. states that the composition of the supervisory
authority should be composed in such a way that different
civilizationsand
legal systems are represented in a proportional manner. In this case
it is not the physical-geographical division that is the base of
equitable (universal) representation.

Let
us now return to the specific subject of the present study, surveying
how the two international covenants follow the contract-based model
concerning the right to life and the right to property.

- The U.N.’s
so-called Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948
expresses everyone’s right to life (§ 3) and to own
property (§ 17) in general.

- The exercise
of these two rights makes necessary the fulfillment of very different
conditions. The right to property needs only protection, while life
without active constant nurture wastes away. Indeed, the § 25 of
the UDHR enumerates elements necessary for the livelihood.

- Yet, the
UDHR is not a legally binding document. The two U.N. international
covenants of 1966, one, the ICCPR concerning political and civil
human rights and the other, the ICESCR protecting economic, social
human, and cultural rights, are legally binding. Though accepted
simultaneously, the division of the rights into two documents reveals
that the Western powers tried to formulate the first group in a more
compulsory manner than the second one. The division also provided the
possibility of ratifying not both but selectively one of the
covenants. As a matter of fact, the U.S. didn’t ratify the
second covenant and so, despite the declared unity of human rights,
they became the subject of ranking[xliii].

- The ICCPR in
its Article 6 expresses the right to life in a restrictive manner
with the command “do not kill!”

- It is only the
ICESCR that in its Article 6 recognizes the right to living and in
this framework the right to work.

- Both
international covenants recognize in the common part (I. part §
1.2) the right of all peoples to free disposal of their natural
wealth and resources. This right is repeated in the § 47 of
ICCPR and in the § 25 of ICESCR.

- The public
property of natural resources could be charged as a kind of absolute
(land) rent to cover the basic need of the population (people’s
dividend).

- The right to
private property can’t be without limit. This is reinforced by
the fact that neither of the two legally binding international human
rights covenants (ICCPR and ICESCR) repeats the right to private
ownership, declared in the 17. § of the UDHR.

-The “marble
tablet” of human rights is not an axiomatically consistent and
exhaustive system. Therefore it could be completed. Indeed, it has
been first by the convention against racism (ICERD), in 1981 by the
convention again discrimination of women (CADAW), in 1984 against
torture (CAT), in 1989 for the protection of children (CRC) and in
1990 for the protection of migrants (ICRMW). However, not one of
these additions reinforced specially the basic non-peremptory right
to living.

- Everybody’s
equal right to living is a sine qua principle of the
individualistic liberal doctrine. This right could be
institutionalized, on the one hand, by the people’s mentioned
prerogative to the natural resources, and on the other hand, by the
limitation of the right to private ownership of capital goods by the
others’ right to work, more exactly to the sources of
livelihood.

- Finally, by
virtue of the unity of human rights, it is inadmissible that the
Western human rights watch organizations concentrate their attention
arbitrarily andselectively with respect to some rights
concerning the freedom of the press and other rather elite concerns,
while they abstain from unmasking situations where the right to
private capital goods hinders others’ right to living, since in
the individualistic liberal model each one’s equal right
to existence as a basic ontological principle should have a prior
claim.

THE
(MONOLITHIC) RIGHT TO PRIVATE OWNERSHIP AS A HUMAN RIGHT AND OUR AGE

We
have just finished studying how the fundamental liberal norms are
reflected in the international human rights covenants. The Western
Enlightenment considered as a fundamental achievement of the societal
model composed of contracts among equals, the “restoration”
of the individual to himself by emancipating him from slavery and
vassalage. This accomplishment also included the individual’s
right to private ownership of his (physical) surroundings without
mediation by the family, church or other social institution. The
right had been declared “natural” or “normal”
(Locke) and added the pragmatic consideration that natural resources
are used best in this way.

Now
we look at how this historical achievement is working out in today’s
society. First we raise two simple questions:

- In today’s
society who are the major owners of the largest part of private
properties?

- What are the
principal objects of properties?

In
light of the answer, we will examine how the monolithic concept of
property resolves into component parts in order to see how this right
could be limited as a function of everyone’s prior right to
living.

1.
The ideal subjectof
the liberal owner is the self-interested pioneer entrepreneur –
Robinson Crusoe. His private ownership provides[xliv]
not only the conditions of his freedom but ensures the best use of
goods.

The
American constitution (which follows Locke’s line), apart from
the state, which is constituted by the individuals’ contracts
for service, recognizes individuals only as legal entities.
Today, what is behind the legal concept of the “individual”
who has the sacrosanct right to private ownership? In 1800
individuals as a legal abstraction were 80 percent individual
producers, while in 2006 only 7.3 percent are still truly individual
producers. In accordance with these circumstances, in 2004
corporations “as individuals” produced 83.5 percent of
national income, while the truly individual proprietors only 5.2
percent[xlv]. (It is
consistent with this picture that 80 percent of American citizens
have no inheritance.)

The
perversion of the “exemplary” American legal system is
that most of the capital owners are no longer pioneers breaking up
fallow land but are now corporations. Corporations (not inaptly
called in French societés
anonymes)
are personified legal persons, “individuals,” who are
freed from all kind of social servitude. The most important object of
private ownership is no more the immobile inherited home, the family
cottage with its symbolic value, but the intangible capital of stock
exchanges, or even derivatives of the less visible private exchange
or Second Market. While the pioneer entrepreneur taking
possession of uncultivated land today has become – at least in
the U.S and the West in general – a rare exception, based on
this prototype and by tacitly extending the circle of individuals to
the corporations — by this misleading terminology[xlvi]
— the latter enjoy all the individual’s “human
rights.”

By
the tacit transfer of individual proprietor’s right to
corporations, neo-liberalism safeguards the interests of global
capital owners who can pursue international financial speculation
independent of productive processes. The most celebrated defenders of
the absolute right to property forms the so-called Mont Pélerin
Society in Switzerland, including the late Friedrich A. von Hayek,
Ludwig E. von Mises, W. Röpke and today Milton Friedman.
We discuss here, of course, only the human rights aspect of the
neo-liberalism.

It
is possible that the liberal ideal is only an utopia, but in this
case it should be openly and clearly stated, and point to those who
profit from the ethical nihilism and cynicism of its loose
interpretation and application; the acceptance of the neo-liberal
outlook has a negative effect on the ordinary citizen’s respect
for the law and on social solidarity[xlvii].

2.
We discuss now the right to private property from the viewpoint of
the characteristics of its objects.The
American constitution has been tailored to the individual independent
small owner-producers. Although the constitution of 1789 hasn’t
changed, the main objects of property have changed. Property can be
classed by its purpose and use-value. When demand exceeds supply,
anything has a trade-in value[xlviii].
By market transfer, all property can be expressed in monetary value.
Objects can be exchanged by this equivalence and the size of
someone’s fortune evaluated.

A
first group constitutes the object of personal use, mobile and
immobile. This is the kind of private ownership – personal
effects - to which personal attachment or affection is sometimes
related. As an example of this, the sacrosanct respect for
private property is hammered into the heads of children during their
socialization. If the exclusive and free disposal of private property
could be limited only to this category of objects, neither the
liberal nor any other doctrine would take issue. (Perhaps the
familial or individual right of inheritance could constitute an
object of discord. We will discuss this subject later on.)

The
means of production constitutes yet a very different group. Of
course, some objects are childishly associated with spade and hoe. In
reality in this group we find very expensive objects. Often they
enjoy exclusivity not only by their price. We can evoke the trade
names that are protected as a brand. Sometimes a whole geographical
locality or region is privately appropriated as a registered
trademark and even the inhabitants of the region can’t put
their own products into circulation under their place-name. It is
clear that this right of private property could not be handled as a
condition of everybody’s freedom.

In
a third category we find natural resources. The unlimited private
ownership of natural wealth could not be considered as a basic
individual human right, since all international human rights
covenants stated without ambiguity the peoples’ collective
prerogative to freely dispose of it. Of course, this doesn’t
exclude the possibility that some aspect of this ownership right
could be temporarily transferred into private hands.

Finally,
the objects enumerated above represent a monetary value beyond their
physical identity. Today this value is expressed generally by a
“government letter of credit” or banknotes. If it is
possible to attach a price tag to any object, on the other hand, in
our age the largest part of capital assets in the global economy
can’t be visibly associated with physical objects, but only
with a financial state. This is composed of various pledges, orders,
agreements-for-sale, liabilities to pay, derivatives transferable
worldwide instantly by electronic means from one kind of currency to
others or to drawing rights. The private property of these corporate
“liquidities” is the essence of today’s global
capitalism.

When
under the pretext of defending personal freedom and facilitating
initiative, the ultraliberal school argues for the absolute right to
individual private ownership, in fact, in today’s global
economy, it militates mainly for the unlimited wandering of financial
speculation[xlix].

3.
Neo-liberalism posits the right to private ownership in a monolithic
form. We now analyze the monolithic concept of private
ownership by its components. This refined approach allows us to
identify with more precision which aspect of the private ownership
right can prejudice other more fundamental human rights such as the
right of others to make living.

In
general terms, property means the right to be in possession of value,
and private property can’t exist without the exclusion of
others. According to the Roman legal tradition private property has
three aspects: (a) usus, (b) fructus and (c) abusus.
The owner can use the object, lease its usufruct and convey his right
to others by sale or donation, or in virtue of abusus even simply
destroy it (the case of pure exclusion). It is a completely absurd
idea that an absolute (unrestricted) right to private property of
anything and all its aspects could exist. Fortunately the two
international human rights covenants don’t posit the right to
private ownership; but the constitution and laws of numerous
countries “enshrine” it without qualification.
The right to private property and the limitation of its practice
could be judged only in the context of its aspects and in the light
of the objects’ classification. A general, exclusive and
absolute private property right could not be formed that applies
uniformly to homestead, non-home real estate, immovable property and
to variable movable, or intangible properties such as negotiable
financial instruments, stocks, bonds, capital shares and other
assets.

As
already indicated, the exclusive use of personal property - if it
doesn’t concern a socially indispensable object - cannot be
truly limited. As the Common Law states, its disposition is “free
simple absolute”. Indeed, this kind of property interferes
rarely with others’ right to living and work[l].
Only this kind of private property can be considered an external
condition for a free personal and familial life. Without going into
detail, it is clear that the fructification of the means of
production as private property or its transfer to possible
annihilation could be the object of limitation on others’ right
to living.[li]

We
should qualify, by the somewhat abused word “speculation,”
disposals, transfers and other movements of financial capital that
look for profit often unrelated to the trade of useful goods. And yet
on a global level these operations account for an ever greater part
of the transactions. These transactions on the stock market and other
secondary private markets can usually be recognized by their
rapidity, volatility and short duration. Contrary to appearance, most
of these transactions can’t be characterized as ingenious
anticipation that is necessary to accelerate the market’s
adaptation; in fact most of the time it operates by a self-fulfilling
prophecy, taking profits to the detriment of central banks and states
(bonds). Because the concentration of global capital advances in
relation to the yet fragmented state powers, the specific survey and
limitation of determined property sectors is a very timely task. If
its rapid spread is not contained, it can endanger the sovereignty of
(indebted) states, and even more the entire national economies of
small countries.[lii] As
mentioned, these manipulations could be recognized among others by
their speed, short-term, entangled and chaotic nature and therefore
could be limited by appropriate international legislation.

The
transfer of ownership (the abusus in Roman law) and the
intergenerational accumulation of wealth by inheritance deserve
special attention. Some capital, inherited by newborn children
without personal merit creates discrimination that reduces the
liberal principle of equal chance to nothing. Indeed, this free
transmission of fortune allows some to live without effort, while
others are perhaps even deprived of the possibility of work. The
general effect of this practice on the societal system as a whole
will be discussed in the following chapter.

The
theoretical debate about the right to private property as a human
right in general, shelters vested interests. As mentioned, contrary
to the non-binding UDHR, the two binding international human rights
covenants don’t mention the right to private ownership; however
the constitutions and laws of many states do. We have here dissected
the issue by its subject, objects and characteristics, and arrived at
the conclusion that a general monolithic right to private
property extended uniformly to all three aspects of ownership, to any
proprietors (physical individuals and global corporations) and to any
kind of property (family cottage or natural wealth) is incompatible
with the most basic principle of liberal society based on everybody’s
equal right to existence.

We
repeat again and again, if the justification of the right to private
ownership is to provide personal freedom for everybody, this
justification covers without reserve only the personal belongings.

THE
HUMAN RIGHT TO INHERITANCE OF CAPITAL AS A BASE OF “LIMITLESS”
MODERN PLUTOCRATIC DYNASTICISM

The
contemporary Western societal model is based on individuals and their
equal rights. This means that the society should eliminate all of the
newborn’s “use-values” that are produced not by
nature but by the society. Reputed family names and all other social
circumstances created by the society should not compromise the
newborn’s equal chance.

Still
the absolute interpretation of the right to ownership of private
fortune is extended to its inheritability and other forms of
transfer[liii]. Someinfants
could also be the heir-apparent of capital wealth. But not everybody!
If we include in the private ownership of capital the hereditary
right, the equality of the individual is impaired by the society at
the very moment of birth.

From
a secular viewpoint[liv],
contrary to Rawls position, the inheritance of fortune could not be
grouped with the “fatality” of inherited gift or
intelligence. From the viewpoint of liberal doctrine, the fundamental
hereditary right to fortune belongs to the same category as do
inherited names or title by descent, since all these are not given by
nature but by social decision. These are all differences attached to
the person by the society, undeservedly at birth. Family and forename
are relatively individual designations, but in an emancipated society
it should not have more importance than a social security number,
which also unequivocally identifies an individual but in a neutral,
impartial manner. The enlightened legal system took aim at the
suppression of the blue-blooded nobility, of “dynasticism”,
of all distinction independent from personal accomplishment. To
repeat, from the viewpoint of the social equality of individuals, the
inheritance of fortune should be classed with the inherited pedigree
of nobility and not with differences in native talent. The point
relating to matters of principle is that contrary to a viewpoint of
fairness, if the liberal doctrine will truly exclude indiscriminately
all
kinds of socially induced privileged situations due to birth, and
therefore suppress that of nobility but not that of inherited
fortune, equal rights are not served, since the new human rights
system makes an exception,
an econocratic one. The inheritance of fortune encroaches upon the
liberal value order. By admission of this exceptional social
difference at birth, the new system becomes susceptible to dynastic
tendencies, this time to a plutocratic one, where the specifically
economic discrimination of the newborns violates the ground principle
of the equal rights of liberal justice — the individual’s
Ebenbürtigkeit
(Beckert).

Before
we characterize an era by a definite societal phenomenon calling it
plutocratic dynasticism and studying its effects and consequences, we
should learn (a) what is the proportion of the inherited part of the
private fortunes in a society, (b) how is the inherited wealth
distributed within the population, and finally (c) what is the
distribution of private wealth in general within the modern
“democratic” society.

Studies
of the “caste-system” related to inheritance of fortune
in the bourgeois society are sparse and the subject has been
approached in various ways.

a.
The difference between total national wealth and the inherited one
characterizes economic growth as well as the intergenerational
distribution in general (consumption versus accumulation). We examine
here only the issue from the viewpoint of the individual having an
equal start in life.

According
to Kotlikoff’s[lv]
estimate in the U.S. 80 percent of the wealth comes from inheritance,
while according to Modiglani’s different model of calculation
it is only 20 p. c. Kesseler Masson’s model gives 35-40
percent. Indeed, the estimation is difficult since gifts, the inter
vivos transfer,
should be counted too.

b.
Concerning the distribution of the inherited fortune, the largest
part of the population has not inherited capital wealth. In the last
years 4/5 of the U.S. population inherited no wealth. According to
Luc Arrondel[lvi] in 1987 in
France 51 percent of the inherited wealth went to 10 percent of the
population; and within that group 1 percent profited from 19 percent
of the inherited fortune.

c.
The economies of our societies are characterized by large differences
in fortune. According to the report of 2007 of the U.S. Census Bureau
in 2006 1 percent of the households held 190 times more fortune than
the average wealth of all households. In 1981 this gap was only
125 times. These disparities are higher than those within the income
distribution, even if between 1981 and now the personal income
difference also increased. (The U.S. Census data for 2010 shows the
highest income gap on record.) For that matter, the difference in the
U.S. is higher than in Europe, except for Great Britain[lvii]
and the present American legislation favors the increase of the gap.

We
can conclude that individuals exercise their right to living in our
Western society in two fundamentally different manners: one
will live from his capital gain by “negotiating” a
good return, and the other, by far the larger part, should find a
place of employment in order to make a livelihood. This is the basic
initial situation for Rawls social contract. This is the division of
labor and the accepted public order. Contrary to the privileged
classes of the Ancient Regime, the capital holders now dispose of
their fortune, formally and freely, without explicit personal legal
obligationcorresponding
to their economic situation. (For example, to make the unused means
of production available for the living of have-nots.) This tendency
became even stronger by the freedom of the speculator to create
artificial shortages of various global commodities for profit. Since
capital proprietors neither individually nor collectively are legally
responsible for the shortage of workplaces, the right to work can’t
be recognized as a paramount human right. We have seen that the
relative number of self-employed is constantly diminishing,[lviii]
the difference between the two classes is not fading, nor is the
passage between them smoother; therefore the situation could only be
corrected by reforming the succession of property rights (cf.,
land reforms).

To
identify a plutocratic dynastic republic, it is not only important to
count the proportion of inherited fortune and the cross-section of
wealth distribution, but also the permanency of dynasties from
generation to generation - whether they experience significant
changes, class mobility with relative rises and “come-downs”.

Charles
Kerwin[lix] observed with his
collaborators that 36 percent of the descendants of the families,
which constitute the 20 percent richest in the society, could be
found in the next generation in the same class, and that 36 percent
of 20 percent of descendents of the poorest families also remain in
the group where their parents were. Within the other social strata
vertical intergenerational mobility is also very limited.

By
the multigenerational reproduction of the functional social division
between those detaining the capital goods by means of inheritance and
those who look for work as a source of livelihood, the plutocratic
dynasticism became a cardinal institution of the bourgeois society.
The feudal system[lx] was
characterized by inherited titles with rights and obligations
attached. The new system guaranteed pro forma the self-determination
of man and we call it progress. The political
characteristic
of the new system is that the class living from capital gain and
investment - called the business class, largely the corporate
establishment - as representative of the Economy has the right to be
specially consulted by the State before any important decision[lxi].
On the other hand, willy-nilly in the representative democracy the
business-class can preselect the eligible, since without financial
support there are no viable candidates; and the fact that –
following the suffragist movement (Sen 363) - in more and more
countries, where the women and even adolescents have the right to
vote, there has been no change in this basic state of affairs.

As
a matter of fact, the development of the new bourgeois human rights
order protects progressively all newborns from all discrimination by
origin; however it makes a fundamental exception. The declaration of
the right to private capital with the right to its transfer by
inheritance institutionalizes inequality according to plutocratic
descent, and the intergenerational strengthening of this process
makes it the cardinal institution of the society.

In
our bourgeois society this “exemption”, privilege is not
even considered a disgrace, since the so-called “old
money”[lxii] will be on
display and is the object of envy. The virtuous pride in it is
expressed by the naming of plutocratic dynasties. Family foundations
replace the aristocratic houses, - the Carnegies, the Eszterházys
- and in the succeeding generations of ultra-rich families,
descendents add to their name a Roman numeral, e.g., Ford III, J.
Paul Getty III. Since 1887 the Social Register enumerates the
American elite. In 1976 the plutocrat Malcolm Forbes unified all the
local Social Registers. Of course, some families die out, even if
countered by admission of the female lineage, but 92
percent of the names registered in 1940 are also present in the list
of 1977 and 87 percent of the original names in 1995. Half of them
use the Roman numeral in their name. In 1915 a U.S. congressional
report called the plutocratic system “industrial feudalism”
and the new ruling class is discreetly called the Business.

Jens
Beckert formulated clearly how the present Western human rights
practice on this point deviates from the societal model based
strictly on individuals with equal chance.[lxiii]
Beckert also describes the varieties of legal forms of
intergenerational transfer of fortunes – by inheritance
or will – in the Anglo-Saxon, French and German legal systems.
However in the plutocratic dynastic republics the combination of the
right of corporations, foundations and trusts provides an
intergenerational unity of the class living essentially from capital
gain.

As
exposed, the presently applied human rights system, in which the
right to private ownership can counter the equal right of others to
physical existence, can’t be considered as a consequent
embodiment of the enlightenment’s model society based on the
equal right of everybody. However, some try to justify on a pragmatic
basis the usefulness of the institution of dynastic inheritance. They
consider that entrepreneurial ability can be somehow inherited.
Joseph Schumpeter’s arguments are well known.[lxiv]
To imagine that the investor-entrepreneur’s capacity also runs
in the blood of his descendents is a capitalist version of the
eugenics of blue-bloodedness inspired to some extent by Darwin.[lxv]

This
kind of genetic hypothesis is only ideologically founded.
Multigenerational successes are not based on inherited quality but on
socialization, on social pedagogical transmission: the helpless
individual born in a wealthy family receives a different education
and different know-how. He learns what matters, what issues the
parents consider to be of vital importance to the family: it is not
the quest for employment but for profitable investment. (Jean-Paul
Sartre tells us in his autobiographical work Les mots [1964]
that first he learned words from the family bookshelf and only
afterward identified the designated objects themselves.) Further, the
infants of wealthy families also inherit different networks of
connections.

After
studying the normative consistency of the liberal (ideal-typical)
societal model applied to human rights, we now consider another
level: whether this system is at all compatible with anthropo-social
reality. In order to enlarge our perspective let us refer briefly to
two concepts of Indian jurisprudence. The classical legal theorist
Manu[lxvi] developed a
consequence-independent, ideal-typical, rule-bound arrangement of
justice (somewhat like Rawls), in Sanskrit called nitithat
is distinguished in the Indian legal tradition from the nyaya,which
is a realization-focused perspective and which considers the
comprehensive outcome. In the next section we will examine the issue
of the relativity of human rights in the nyaya-like
perspective.

THE
CONTRACTARIAN SOCIETAL MODEL BASED ON EQUALITY AMONG INDIVIDUALS AND
THE HUMAN-BIOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL-ANTHROPOLOGICAL REALITY OF THE
HELPLESSNESS OF NEWBORN HUMAN BEINGS.

The
constitutional recognition of private property as a fundamental human
right – including the inheritance of capital wealth – is
at variance with the liberal social order, which is based on
everybody’s equal right to existence. However we can observe
that in various historical epochs and civilizations some progenitors
succeed – by diverse hidden or open ways and means
– to provide favours to their descendents.

Usually
historians look in two directions for appropriate examples: in the
old European feudal system and in so-called archaic “civilizations”
like the Hindu caste-system or the Muslim emirates. However a more
objective impartial examination of facts shows that we can find cases
of transmission of political power and social influence attributable
to blood relationship of descent other than in countries with
explicitly hereditary dynastic systems like Saudi-Arabia, Jordan, the
Moroccan Kingdom or the Arab emirates. We can observe signs of it in
republics like Syria, or even in the Westminster-type “rotating”
representative democratic systems. In these systems, for example, the
publicly recognizable nature of a family name gives close relatives a
great advantage for election. This can be observed not only in India
concerning the Ghandi family, but also in the U.S. concerning the
Bushes. Examples can be multiplied in other representative
democracies; as Adam Bellow[lxvii]
notes, even revolutionaries who reversed unjust political systems
often made from their descendents a – hereditary –
successor. As we already noted, the economist Joseph Schumpeter
imagined a kind of inherited entrepreneurial ability, while the also
quoted Dawkins explained the continuation of dynasties by the
biological inheritance of genes. Contradicting this biological
explanation is the fact that widows of influential politicians in
very different lands have sometimes “inherited” political
positions like Christina Kirchner in Argentina, Corazon Aquino in the
Philippines, or W.R.D. Bandaranaike’s widow in Sri Lanka.

We
will here discuss the subject in more general terms than these single
historical cases. We look for an answer to a comprehensive question:
in the light of the empirical human sciences is there any chance that
the historically unprecedented promise of the individualistic liberal
doctrine is within our reach, namely that allsocial
discrimination given by birth will be progressively suppressed? To
answer this question we should establish an overall realistic
conception of all human societies and their components. Undoubtedly,
general experience shows some characteristics common to the human
race. All individuals come into the world not fully grown, but as
helpless infants, dependent on their parents or other caregivers.
Self-made, without nurturance newborns can’t reach the
majority. This fact is often neglected but is of great consequence.
Then the question arises instantaneously: how to implement an
environment of equal treatment of newborns without tearing them from
their families by putting them in orphanage or janissary-like
educational systems? (By the way, perhaps in the near future, this
will be the case in the modern Western society, where compulsory
schooling begins at an ever-earlier age.) Marx and especially
Engels[lxviii] express great
interest in this question.

The
institutions of upbringing form the first social ties of the little
ones. Consequently, if it happens in the framework of the family, the
first ties are related to the blood relationship. Beyond the period
of “suckling”, the formation of habits during the long
socialization process with the mother tongue brings with it a whole
cultural background and world outlook.

Whatever
the parents’ motivation, whether self-centred[lxix]
love or altruism in the upbringing of their children, they hope to be
compensated in their old age. The newborn receives services
without synchronous reciprocation. This initial situation can’t
be denied in the liberal ideology. Living together under the same
roof creates intense affective ties, even if they can turn negative.
The landed property – family cottage, mansion or castle –
symbolizes the parental home. By the way, the special literature
about the right of inheritance concentrates largely on this problem.
In different countries and in different epochs the experts tried to
solve the problem of inequality between generations and individuals
of different descents by various systems of taxation [lxx].

Yet,
in our era of financial globalism, the problem of the family’s
immovable property is only a small tip of the iceberg. The truly big
capital in money is reshaped in the form of stock certificates and
financial participations hardly fixed to a place. Their proprietors
cannot at any moment identify their fortune in tangible material
objects. We should now add to this picture that a donation or gift is
a main means for nourishing intimate relations. It is obvious that
the most clever tax-collector can’t catch all the
intergenerational transfers, even large ones, especially if they
happen through an intermediary or by off-shore trusts and
foundations. (We can also include the donation of gems, jewellery and
other small but highly valuable objects hidden in a safe. See
Salter’s quoted volume.)

The
socialization process comprises the relation within the large network
of extended family. To the unavoidable circumstances of becoming
adult - beside the habit formation – an intergenerational
formation of acquaintanceship also belongs.

In
the Ancient Regime and in other civilizations the distinction by
birth has been formally recognized and accepted. Today’s
republics, based on the individual’s equal human rights,
postulate that socially generated discrimination by birth
could be suppressed by further refinement, patching and enlargement
of the catalogue of human rights. The completeness of the bourgeois
human rights list remained silent about the discriminative
consequences of intergenerational transmission of capital fortune
(which could be freely used, without subordinating its use to the
common good) by way of succession or will.

Among
the advantages given by birth, the “nominal” one –
nobility – could be eliminated by a stroke of the pen, but the
advantages coming from the parents financial condition could in fact
not be abolished because of man’s helpless birth and the
following necessary socialization process. If this is the case, could
the liberal Western human rights construct preserve its unique,
supreme, universal stature?

WESTERN
INDIVIDUALISTIC HUMAN RIGHTS IN A REALIZATION-FOCUSED AND COMPARATIVE
PERSPECTIVE

Summing
up what has been said, Western liberalism - following Locke and
Rousseau – deduces the constitution of the society and of the
state exclusively from the contracts concluded among equal partners.
So for a large number of individualist authors, the individual with
his natural human rights exists – at least conceptually –
before the state. The U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (UDHR) in 1948 has fundamentally evolved from the liberal
doctrine. It posits everyone’s right to life (§3) and even
the right to work and livelihood (§22ff), but also in general
terms the right to private property (§17). However, for
international law, only the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR) and that on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (ICESCR) concluded in 1966 are binding. The U.N. General
Assembly (2200A[XXI]) as well as the Declaration of Vienna in 1993
states the inseparability of all human rights. Since no contradiction
among them is presupposed, meta-principles for ranking them have not
been established. However, the fact that the ICCPR and ICESCR are
distinct documents and could be ratified separately allows an
implicit ranking of human rights. You can’t escape the fact
that the Western states consider only the ICCPR as completely
obligatory and so all ratified it even if with some reservations.
Amartya Sen states that economic and social rights, which are
excluded from the “inner sanctum of human rights” as
so-called “second generation’ rights, should be applied
only if some conditions could be realized.[lxxi]
We also observed that the Western inspired Human Rights Watch
organization as well as Amnesty International and the New York based
Freedom House keep their eyes only on the application of the ICCPR.

The
UDHR declared the right to property without restriction on
intergenerational transfer. If the International Covenants of 1966
didn’t confirm this right, the constitutions of most Western
states did. Then again, in the spirit of a liberal worldview,
everyone has an equal right to living – “debited”
on the people’s prerogatives for natural wealth and resources
(ICCPR §I.1.2 and § V.47). This right of everybody should
rank before all other rights since existence itself is an ontological
sine qua condition for the exercise of any other rights.
Therefore, according to fundamental liberal reasoning about equal
rights for everyone, if this right of living conflicts with the right
to private property, the latter should be subordinated to the first.

If
subordination of private ownership to everybody’s right to live
does not come about, certain newborns become proprietors of inherited
fortune that guarantees their whole existence - perhaps without other
personal merit, - while the existence of others is only guaranteed if
they find a job and can join the workforce. Because this
difference is induced by the society, the equality of chance
cannot materialize.

This
being granted, in the realization-focused perspective, we should
confront the ideal-typical individualistic liberal societal model
with empirical anthropological reality. As already evoked, it is a
basic biological fact that the human being – even if conceived
in a test tube – comes helplessly to light not so differently
from the kangaroo as we sometimes imagine. Therefore,
initially,
a
unilateral, social-anthropological “insertion” precedes,
always
necessarily and without exception, man’s
emancipation, his introduction as an adult into the already
established society where he can freely contract later on. The
socialization process usually happens in the framework of family,
generates multigenerational intertwining, and so makes the
intergenerational transfer of fortune, by gift or inheritance,
natural. The complete extinction of the differentiated inborn
transfer of wealthcould
be realized only by fostering all newborns as orphans. This would
necessitate the forcible shattering of natural family ties and
privacy.

Again,
if we accept human birth with family fostering as natural and
unavoidable, we must acknowledge that there are profound implications
for the value of the prescription of liberal norms.

In
this case, we can’t impute a prototypical exclusive role to the
contract among adult individuals, derived basically from the
situation of market the exchange transactions in all
human
relations. Since everyone is born helpless, other social relations
should be accepted as constitutive ones that are not based on mutual
free will and individual choice with all its implications; this is
the fundamentally unequal relationship between the helpless infant
and his parents,

Yet,
if we accept that by force of the human way of nurturing, it is, in
reality, impossible to hinder intergenerational transfer of family
wealth; and if the right to this transfer is not limited to a
determined range of personal goods (including the home), but is
formulated in a comprehensive monolithic manner, — in
opposition to the suppression of the inherited caste-system or
nobility titles — the “dynasticist discrimination”
is not eliminated completely. It happens only that by maintaining
intergenerational private property transfer to the newborn without
merit, the system of discrimination now becomes concentrated on the
difference in fortune. In this way the liberal doctrine, after the
liberation of slaves and serfs, becomes, in fact, a subtle apology
for the inborn prerogatives of the capitalist class. By the
intergenerational transfer of capital wealth within a community, from
generation to generation, the society becomes primarily characterized
by a plutocratic form of dynasticism. While our society bears many
important societal traits (the Information society and so on), it is
for this very reason that it could be called essentially a capitalist
society.

The
inequity of inheritance without merit and the ensuing social
disequilibria, as well as the loss in economic efficiency[lxxii]
due to the spread of developing plutocratic dynasticism, can only be
corrected by repeated property reforms like the agrarian reforms.
However, contemporary post-industrial finance is organized on a
worldwide scale and operates trans-nationally, scattered and
unobserved. And the states, the various jurisdictions –
even the largest like the U.S.A., China, India or Russia – are
organized on a smaller geographical level. For the time being –
since we can only dream about a world state - no efficient political
oversight and control of the global accumulation of speculative
capital is possible. If man’s social biological
conditions are at such a fundamental point, that in light of this
constraint the individualist liberal contract-based model seems
unachievable. It can’t be a universal role model and therefore
loses its unmatched global attraction. So in a realization-focused
comparative perspective, on the pragmatic real-type level, the
Western model should enter into competition with conceptions of other
coexisting civilizations. It is possible that according to the
criteria of societal improvement, other concepts, which recognize the
unavoidable social entanglement of helpless-born man, perform better
than our Western one. Indeed, Joanne R. Bauer and D. A. Bell insist
that the fundamental purpose of the human rights regime is the
promotion and protection of vital human interests, the
betterment.[lxxiii]

We
are now at the realization-focused level, what Sen called in Sanskrit
- in opposition to the ideal arrangement-centred perspective - nyaya[lxxiv].
As we discussed elsewhere, the society is not only held
together[lxxv] (a) by market
contracts coming from the division of work necessary for collective
self-preservation, but also (b) by the instinct to propagate the
species and (c) the shared scriptural Tradition, transmitted
first by the mother tongue.

In
reality, the development of the helpless-born human being brings
about a multigenerational social fabric that in turn leads to a
system of human rights in which the familyshould be
recognized as an important subject. Indeed, Article 23.1 of the ICCPR
states that “the family is a natural and fundamental group”
[lxxvi]. Today’s
Western civilization insists on the individual’s right to free
choice of a partner (§23.2). However, for some other
contemporary civilizations the founding of a family is not
exclusively a matter of two partners (for reproduction) but also of
the predecessors, the whole “legating” family. Western
liberals are shocked by this community based proceeding. However, if
we compare globally the durability of the family institution and the
stability of the families, we can observe that the bonds based
essentially on instantaneous sensual sympathy, the attraction of two
youths, is much more exposed to erosion over time and to
divorce than alliances built on a larger socio-anthropological,
multi-generational – and therefore often more
multidimensional (!) – consensus.

By
evoking the existence of rankings of human rights other than those of
the West, we should not go too far in suggesting that the West should
follow some other civilization’s norm system. We will say only
that, because of the unavoidable social-anthropological embeddedness
of the newborn human being in his initial position, the applied
individualistic liberal model doesn’t suppress inborn social
discrimination per
se.
It contributes only to bringing the dynastic plutocracy into an
exceptional position. Therefore, from the realization-focusedperspective,
the Western liberal-capitalist system as historical achievement is
very relative and, considering the total outcome, it remains in
competition with the system of norms applied in other coexisting
civilizations. The realistic reading of the alternative achievements
of different human rights frees us from the Western-centred parochial
bias[lxxvii].

Today,
many authors state that if we will develop a truly universal system
of the enumeration and ranking of fundamental human rights, we should
take into consideration the “Eastern” and/or the “Asian”
value order. We mention here again Daniel A. Bell who teaches now at
the Chinese Tsinghua University.[lxxviii]
According to him, if we consider the societal well-being indexes
(among others the number of divorces, the life expectancy) of some
non-Western, perhaps authoritarian societal systems, they show more
compatibility with the specific characteristics of the human being
and of mankind; therefore these systems could produce an even more
satisfactory outcome for individuals than the strictly
individualistic Western model[lxxix].

Paradoxically,
if authors reduce the intercivilizational pluralism to a dichotomy
between the West and a non-western amalgam called East, the approach
itself becomes European-centred. It deprives precisely the particular
non-western civilizations of their very identity. It is a further
pitfall to speak about an “Asian” value-order as it
refers to a Western, colonial-inspired geographical denomination and
doesn’t encompass a homogeneous sphere of civilizations.

In
general terms,[lxxx] we can
state that the human rights system can be only truly universal if,
along side the individualistic Western norm system, we also consider
in an impartial manner the principles and practices, as well as
the legacy of the Arabo-Muslim, Bharati and Chinese spheres of
civilization, since they have preserved their autonomy and identity
throughout a great past.

[ii]Already in 1792, Jeremy Bentham, the
founder of utilitarianism in his Anarchical
Fallacies Being an Examination of the Declaration of Rights Issued
during the French Revolution dismisses
all such claims as artificially elevated nonsense. Bentham writes:
“right,
the substantive right,
is the child of law; from reallaws come realrights; but from imaginarylaws, from ‘law of nature’,
come only imaginaryrights.” The
Works of Jeremy BenthamWilliams
Tait, Edinburgh, vol. II, (republished in 1843), 523.

Indeed, contrary to Sen’s
argument (Sen Amartya: The Idea of Justice, Penguin Books,
London, 2010, 361-4) for clarity of terminology ethical right and
obligations should be clearly distinguished from substantive right
enforced by law.

[ix]For Gautama Buddha (see Sutta
Nipata) humanity
is enormously more powerful than other species, and - like mothers
toward their children - because of this asymmetry of power we have
some particular responsibilities toward them (Sen 205).

[xi]See Rawls definition of “autonomy”
of “rational persons” (252). We find in game theory the
“rational choice” (17). (Rawls presented his theory
first in 1958 in an article.)

[xii]The extension of the
marketplace-like situation on the whole social life as paradigm is
expressed by Cass R. Sunstein (in her On
Rumors,Penguin,
London, 2010, 67): “The optimistic view – that the
marketplace of ideas is essentially reliable – played a large
role in the XXth century constitutional law.”

[xiii]In this context the expression
habeas corpusis very often used. However, this
right instituted in 1679 in the English law meant only that the
arrested individual has the right to appear before the judge in
person.

[xiv]Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in
his Common Law
(1881) opposes the
individual right of property to the familial and ecclesiastical
rights. (John E. Welsh: Max
Stirner’s Dialectical Egoism: a New Interpretation.Lanham MD, Lexington Books, 2010.)

[xvi]In A. Lalande’s Vocabulaire
technique et critique de la philosophie (PUF,
Paris, 9.ed.,1962, 253.) Robespierre
and Mirabeau don’t recognize the private property as a natural
right existing before the society. (Mirabeau: “positive laws
that made property possible in the first place.”) Rousseau and
Montesquieu (Spirit
of the Law. 1748)
deduce the private property from the social contract. Hegel does the
same by references to Fichte (Foundations
of Natural Rights. According to the Wissenschaftslehre. Cambridge
UP, Cambridge, 2000 [1796]). See Beckert 57, 27, 71 and 302.

[xvii]Peter Singer: The Right to be Rich
or Poor.” In: New
York Review of Books.
6 March 1975.

[xviii]For Locke “property was
a natural law that precedes all social institutions…
individual right of property arises from human appropriation of
nature.” The natural law justifying private property includes
the inheritance. Locke exercised a predominant influence on
the Fundamental Constitution of Carolinas” of 1671. (See
Beckert 71, 28 and 177.)

[xxii]In a competitive society the
equality before the law is expressed by equal opportunity. (Beckert
28). We can already mention that in the U.S., for example, 17
percent of households have no fortune (only debt), and only 20
percent inherited something. It is also to observe that if somebody
has a great fortune, the larger part of it came from inheritance
(McNamee 59ff, 68; Beckert 28, 71, 275, 278 and 14-15.)

[xxv]This goes back to Aristotle
(1261b34), who states that a private owner makes the best use of
things.

[xxvi]I. Brownlie: Principles
of Public International Law.Oxford
UP, Oxford, 2003, 531-2. M. A.Gledon: A
World Made New: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.Random
House, New York, 2001.

[xxx]Curt
Goering 16-17, in D. A. Bell and J.M. Coicaud (eds.):
The Ethics in
Action: The Ethical Challenges of International Human Rights of
Nongovernmental Organizations.Cambridge
UP, Cambridge, 2007, 8, 13, 16-21. In the same volume see Gilmore
Mertz’s article (8). Coicaud notes that today the
international non-governmental organizations (INGO) are stronger
,than the trade unions.

[xxxi]C. Scott: The Interdependence and
Permeability of Human Rights Norms: Toward a Partial Fusion of
International Covenants on Human Rights. In: Osgood
Law Journal.Vol.
27, 1989. Maurice Cranston (Are There Human Rights? In Daedalus,
Fall 1983, 13)
“political and civil rights are not difficult to institute.
For the most part, they require..leave a man alone.” (Sen
382.) Marie-Dembour (What are Human Rights? Four Schools of
Thought. In: Human
Rights QuarterlyFebruary
2010, 1-20, p.2-3) wrote: For the natural school of human rights
“only negative obligations can be absolute, for positive
obligations (e.g., to provide education) are never as
clear-cut as a simple prohibition to do something.”

[xxxiii]Louis Henkin: The International Bill
of Rights. In: R. Bernhardt and Jolowicz (eds.): International
Enforcement of Human Rights.North
Holland Pub., New York, 1987, 6-9. According to Brownlie the
obligations in the ICESCR are “programmatic and promotional”
(539). The critique of the ICESCR says these rights are not
accomplishable. (Onora O’Neill: Bounds
of Justice.
Cambridge UP, Cambridge, 2000.)

[xxxiv]Among the workers’ rights the
trade union’s one is yet somehow watched by these
organizations (ICESCR §8 and Brownie 539), since it also has a
political dimension (ICCPR §22.1). It is to note that the trade
unions lost in some countries their original mission. They organize
the state employees who enjoy a relatively stable situation instead
of the workers in the private economy. See for example in France.

[xxxv]About the institutional aspects of
restoration of capitalist system see Alfio Cerami et al.:
Post-Communist
Welfare Pathways: Theoretician Social Policy Transformations in
Central and Eastern Europe.Palgrave-MacMillan,
New York, 2009.

[xxxvi]The I.L.O. Convention of 1964
declares in its §122.1(2) “there is work for all who are
available for and seek work.” G. Ankerl: Toward
a Social Contract on a World Wide Scale: Solidarity Contracts.I.L.O., Geneva, 1980.

[xxxvii]The first article states: “to
accept…responsibilities for the achievement and maintenance
of as high and stable employment as possible, with a view to
attainment of full employment.” The second articles states: “…
to protect.. the right of the worker to earn his living…”

[xlvi]David Harvey in his A
Brief History of Neoliberalism(Oxford
UP, Oxford, 2005, 21) uses the term “juridical trick”.

[xlvii]Without contesting the absolute
property right of corporations, the human rights system could
obviously not be the object even of “wishful thinking”.
(Samuel Mojn: The
Last Utopia: Human Rights in History.The
Belcamp Press of Harvard UP, Cambridge, 2010.)

[xlviii]F. Bastiat (Economic
Harmonies. W.Hayden
Poyres, 1850) stated that “in our relations with one another,
we are not owners of the utility of things, but of their value, and
value is the appraisal made of reciprocal services.

[xlix]It is to note that in the U.N.
debate about the human rights in 1966, when the right to work arose,
the neo-liberals tried to link it to the right to free international
trade as a possible source to work. However, since international
trade is practiced more by companies than by individuals, it is not
mentioned as a human right.

[l]During the Great Depression in his
speech of June 19 in 1935 President Roosevelt distinguished the
defensible private property necessary for the security of
individuals and families in opposition to inherited capital wealth
(Beckert 189-90, McNamee 59).

[li]The 8. article of ICESCR prescribes
the right to form trade unions, to strike and in an implicit
manner other limitations on the use of the ownership as a means of
production (Brownlie 539).

[lii]To form an opinion of the size,
leverage and interconnectedness of the global
banking (and
also nonbanking) financialinstitutions, and consequently their
systemic significance, we must consider that for example in
Switzerland the two largest bank’s assets exceed four times
the country’s G.D.P. And even in the U.S. the banks’
assets total about 82 percent of the country’s G.D.P., while
eight of the ten largest banks are now -
“offshore”, viz., - outside the country. (Steven
M. David: Finding just-right rules for ‘ too big to fail’.
In: International
Herald Tribune,
16.02.2011.)

[liv]A
theist, a believer in a Creator could assimilate natural fortune to
social one, but Rawls (212) represents an ideological neutral
position and from the viewpoint of secular justice this is
unacceptable.

[lv]The data comes from McNamee (259 and
68) and from Beckert (15 and 300[10]).

[lxiii]Beckert (14): “Once legal
privileges derived from birth and the heritability of offices were
abolished, the inheritance of property was and is the central (!)
institution of social privilege in modern societies that is based
not on effort, but on birth.” Beckert goes on (300[9]: “The
reason one must speak of purely socialprivilege is that while different
degrees of intelligence and physical attractiveness also bestow
advantages that are independent of effort and achievement, these are
largely the result of nature.” This is a snappy retort to
Rawls who refuses to make a fundamental distinction between
inherited intelligence and inherited fortune. (Cf.,
Beckert 11, 315[41].)

[lxvii]Steve Sailer in his review –
of Adam Bellow’s book (In
Praise of Nepotism: A Natural History.Doubleday,
New York, 2003) for the National
Interest (4.2003)
- calls this situation “revolutionary nepotism”. The
fact that Adam Bellow enjoys the advantage of his father’s
literary Nobel-prize certainly helped him to become aware of the
existence of advantage by birth. About the intergenerational
transmission of fortune and influence in general see also Frank K.
Salter’s volume (Risky
Transactions: Trust, Kinship and Ethnicity.Berg
Hahn Books, Oxford, 2002).

[lxxv]G. Ankerl 2000 vol. I, 53. In the
Bharatiya (Hindu) philosophy we find the concept of Trivarga.
The society is “cemented” by artha(mode of livelihood /production), by
kama (procreative
relations) and by dharma(Holy scriptural tradition). Cf.,
Jon Elster: The
Cement of Society.Cambridge
UP, Cambridge, 1989. (See also in Ibn Khaldun’s
Muqaddimahasabiyya, social
cohesion.)

[lxxvi]The group right, the “We”
becomes a bearer of human rights like the “self” in
individualistic human rights. Bauer
and Bell 23.

[lxxvii]Sen in his quoted work underlines
repeatedly the necessity to read social philosophical issues through
the anthropological way, accepting the “eyes of the rest of
mankind”. Adam Smith: Lectures
on Jurisprudence.
Liberty Press, Indianapolis IN, 1982, 104. Sen XIV, 70, 80, 127 and
404. Cf. S Moyn: The
Last Utopia: Humna Rights in History.
Belknap, Cambridge MA, 2010.

[lxxviii]D. A. Bell studies in his East
Meets West: Human Rights and Democracy in East Asia (Princeton
UP, Princeton, 2000) the system in Singapore and in his China’s
New Confucianism(Princeton
UP, Princeton, 2008) the mainland Chinese one.

The
Relativity of Human Rights within the era of society based on
contracts between equalsby
Guy Ankerl published in International
Journal of Human Rights. London, sept.
2011, 14-36.

STAGES OF GLOBALIZATION: PRIORITY FOR
CO-OPERATION AMONG CIVILIZATION-STATES INSTEAD OF NEW-YORK-TYPE
GLOBAL MIXING OF INDIVIDUALS BY MIGRATION

Abstract DIALOGUE
AMONG CIVILIZATIONS - THE KEY TO A SAFE FUTURE (World
Conference of UNESCO, 23-26 April 2003)

We are more and more in a Global Age. The ideological rhetoric
of 'globalism' implicitly postulates that globalization will
inevitably, and regardless of circumstances, lead to the creation of
a universal civilization. In reality, the means prioritized, and the
particular stages through which the process passes, cannot be looked
upon indifferently, as they both have a considerable effect upon the
character of the globalization achieved. - There are 2 main
variants: (1)(a) The "NEW-YORK-TYPE MIXING of
individuals of various civilizational origins by means of unruly
migration, (b) accompanied by the boundless penetration of
Western-type consumerism into all civilizational areas under
Anglo-American predominance or 'leadership', or (2) a passage
by (a) by enlarging and enforcing the internal
bonds within living civilizations, and (b) by the constitution
of CIVILIZATION-STATES, like India and China, through the
assembling of smaller national states (cf. EU). A truly universal
civilization is constructed on an initial basis of civilizational
regionalism, within relatively autonomous geopolitical areas, which
is then followed by a co-operation among equal partners based on
consensus. (Reciprocal interdependence.) This mutualist
approach prevents hegemonism, and among others, civil war-like
conflicts within states caused by intrusive and invasive large-scale
migration; and, as an end result, it produces worldwide solidarity.
As Ankerl exposed in his "Coexisting Contemporary Civilizations:
Arabo-Muslim, Bharati, Chinese and Western" (2000),
'civilization' signifies a genuine collective life-style, and 3
"glues" provide societal cohesion: (1) A type of
livelihood, (eco-)resource management for collective
self-preservation; (2) an anthropological component for race
preservation (including awareness of common ancestry) and (3) a
writing-system, Scripture that relates to a shared sacred
heritage. Nations are mostly mother-tongue-based entities,
civilizations are writing-based. (E.g., Chinese
pictographic-originated, Muslim Arabic-based.) - Euro-centric
continental-based divisions (cf ., 'Asia',), as well as
'Oriental' or ' Third world' civilizations are empty terms to
constitute an amalgam of the whole non-West to be colonized
("The West and the Rest").If "dialogue
among civilizations is the key to a safe future" (for everybody)
and only equal sovereign international actors can have true
exchange (and avoid dictate), the constitution of an universal
civilization needs first and foremost strong autonomous
civilization-states.

*
* *

In our age, the development of (a) efficient and instantaneous
forms of telecommunication, and (b) the worldwide (jet air) mass
transportation system increase connectedness and make globalization
possible. However, the preference given to far-reaching connections
and broad-spectrum mixing, and to the promotion of international
exchange and 'trade' (at the expense of national,
'vicinal', and local forms), at any price (e.g. by inexpensive export
credits), is largely an ideological option. The rhetoric of the
ideology of 'globalism' implicitly postulates that this process will
inevitably, and regardless of circumstances, lead to the creation of
a universal civilization. In reality, the means prioritized, and the
particular stages through which the process passes, cannot be looked
upon indifferently, as they both have a considerable effect upon the
character of the globalization achieved.

In short, we can distinguish two main variants:

A./ (a) The "NEW-YORK-TYPE MIXING of individuals of various
civilizational origins by means of unruly migration, (b) accompanied
by the boundless penetration of Western-type (fancy) consumerism into
all civilizational areas under Anglo-American predominance or
'leadership'; or

B./ A passage by other stages: first at all, (a) by enlarging,
enforcing and intensifying the internal bonds within living
civilizations, and (b) - by following the example of presently
existing CIVILIZATION-STATES such as India and China - by
the constitution of new civilization-states, such as the European
Union, through the assembling of smaller national states. Put
briefly, a truly global civilization is constructed on an initial
basis of civilizational regionalism, within relatively autonomous
geopolitical areas, which is then followed by the promotion of
co-operation between these groups.

This second way contains two fundamental promises: avoiding
chaotic, civil war-like conflicts within states caused by intrusive
and invasive large-scale migration; and, as an end result, worldwide
solidarity within the framework of a truly universal civilization,
brought about by co-operation among civilizations on the basis of
reciprocal interdependence. This mutualist approach to globalization
is already prefigured in the five principles ( "panca sila"
) of co-operation outlined in the Declaration of the Bandung
Conference of Non-Aligned Countries in 1955.

CIVILIZATION signifies a genuine collective lifestyle, sustained
by an encompassing and sufficiently large population which, by
extension, occupies a sufficiently large (resource-rich) area (Ankerl
2000, 28).

Each civilization has three vectors that serve as 'glues' to
provide societal cohesion:

1. A type of livelihood (also summarily called 'mode of
production'). This signifies collaborative (eco-)resource management
for collective self-preservation (including class solidarity with
regard to income distribution);

2. The anthropological component includes the awareness of a
common ancestry beyond genealogical (lineal and affinal) kinship for
race preservation.

3. The third 'glue', by no means the least important, is a
Scripture that relates to a shared sacred heritage. Despite being one
of the most tangible characteristics of a civilization, this element
is frequently neglected by Western science, due to the more or less
phonetic nature of all Western writing systems. Indeed, while nations
are mostly mother-tongue-based entities, civilizations are
writing-based.

The Chinese civilization, for instance, is fundamentally shaped by
the Confucian ideograms. New concepts are transcribed into the
pictographic-originated scripture, which thus assures China's
continuity in time and space. The Brahmi-Devangari writing is
the medium of the Veda, the shared tradition of all Hindus,
while for the whole 'constituency' of the Muslim civilization, the
Koran's Arabic writing is an essential relying base. (Many writing
systems in non-Arabic Muslim countries originally derive from
Arabic.)

This being granted, the importance of each of the three vectors
varies between different civilizations, and each civilization
establishes a different cardinal institution (economy, religion,
family, ethnicity, etc.).

Our present Western civilization is fundamentally a business
civilization that establishes an econocratic society. (In Old
English, bisinesse was opposed to 'art'.) In this ideological system,
'progress', 'modernization', 'rationalization', and other key terms
become defined and measured by profit-oriented calculation.
Business-type, short-term reasoning becomes the norm. Its science of
'universal history' interprets longum et latum the ultimate cause of
any historical event by historical economism. This statement is valid
for both liberalism and the post-Ricardoian Marxist school. The West
also applies sciences to its colonization of the world. In this
perspective, all contemporary, geographically co-existing
civilizations are arranged in temporal order and, as a result, all
non-Western ones appear as archaic and behind the times.

Yet how can we conceive of different co-existing civilizations if
all human values are universal? Human values may indeed be universal;
however, they do not perforce exist in harmony together. It is
therefore necessary - in the case of conflicting obligations - to
rank them, and each civilization arranges (subordinates) values and
institutions differently, according to its principles.

Living civilizations cover geopolitical areas. This should not be
confused with the CONTINENTAL division of the globe, such as Europe
or Asia, particularly as these divisions and denominations are
noticeably Eurocentric and do not have a firm foundation in physical
geography. Why should India be a 'subcontinent', and why is Europe a
'continent' and not a subcontinent of Eurasia? (The calculation and
comparison, for instance, of an 'Asian average' or a 'European
average' consequently become scientifically meaningless operations.)

The most important point for us is that the existing continental
divisions are not substantiated divisions in terms of civilization.
For geopolitics, as well as for human geography, only the
civilizational division of geographical areas is relevant, such as
the Chinese, Bharati, Arabo-Muslim, Western and Sub-Saharan
civilizations.

As a matter of fact, the concept of 'Asian civilization' is
misleading; so too is 'ORIENTAL' or even 'Third World' civilization.
Not one of them is a scientific concept with heuristic value. They
are confusing empty boxes, Euro-colonial amalgams. Their true content
is negative, namely, that of a NON-WESTERN mass, passively awaiting
colonization by 'Promethean Western business'. Edward Said, Professor
of English Literature at Columbia University, of Christian Arab
Palestinian origin, made a pioneering work that demonstrates how
Orientalism is a tendentious science. However, by seeking
the true content of the Orient, he misses the essential point, namely
the fact that an 'oriental civilization' is itself a false,
non-operating concept. In contrast, the Indian-Singaporean Ambassador
to the U.N., Kishore Mahbubani's formulation of "the West and
the Rest" suitably expresses the purely negative nature of the
concept 'Orient'.

Through independent and impartial observation, it becomes clear
that the differences between the Chinese and the Arabo-Muslim
civilizations - both frequently labelled as "oriental" by
the West - are as significant as their respective differences to the
Western civilization. Are there indeed any characteristics common to
the so-called oriental civilizations, beyond a comfortable colonizing
prejudice? (For that matter, when the Chinese pilgrim, Xijou Ji,
traveled to India, he called his trip, "Voyage en Occident".)
Incidentally, the term 'Third-World civilization' shares the same
negative connotation as the aforementioned binary distinction. It
suggests that the non-Western world is little more than a
civilization of misery. Taken together, these binary
conceptualizations of the West fulfill one sole function: to conceal
and to obliterate the identity of all living civilizations other than
the Western one.

The WESTERN civilization presents itself as a model for an
eventual universal civilization. Its ambitions are hegemonic. As set
out in our "Coexisting Contemporary Civilizations"
(pp.50-245), it is composed of several relatively coherent forces
that operate together: (a) The Anglo-Saxon grouping includes
Anglo-America and the 'white' Commonwealth. Presently, its
predominance and its cohesion are visible on the international scene.
Against all its pretensions, we cannot admit that the English
language, spoken by less than 10 % of the world's population, is the
bearer of a universal civilization, as many publications on
globalization would imply. While English is the most important
international language, it is not a global language. (b) The populous
Latin Catholic periphery is another important cultural and ethnic
component of the Western civilization. (c) Over recent decades, the
Jewish people have become an increasingly autonomous cultural,
economic and political influence in the Western world, despite its
large majority living in Diaspora.

For any civilization, by virtue of its yearning for permanence and
an autonomous internal order that mirrors its value system, statehood
constitutes an important historical landmark. In the globalization
process, statehood has a particular system-value regarding the
self-expression of each civilization. The EUROPEAN part of the
Western civilization seeks a united statehood. The European Union has
been in formation for a half century. So far, the steps toward
unification have been largely based on the econocratic ideology
prevailing in the West, namely, beginning the whole process with a
'common market' and following it up with a common currency. For the
constitution of a federal or confederal state, its organs appear to
look to the United States of America for inspiration. Other
civilizations, however, such as the Chinese and the Bharati or Indian
civilizations, have already constructed their civilization-states.
Moreover, the human geography of Europe has far more in common with
India than with the United States of America. Europe is composed of
peoples with diverse linguistic and ethnic traditions, settled
geographically in different countries. This is the case in the
Republic of India, which is composed of (pra)deshes or
'homelands'. The states in the U.S.A. do not possess this societal
signification. The Anglo-American U.S. is composed mainly of
immigrants of various origin, widely dispersed across its entire
territory, with some reserves for the indigenous Indian populations.
One language, English, is clearly predominant. It is becoming the
sole (quasi-)official language. The constitution of a united European
state would therefore provide an opportunity to reverse the customary
(uni-)directional tendency of the international learning process. The
constitution of India could serve for such a model.

CONCLUSIONS:

The differences of value and institutional order that exist
between various contemporary living civilizations in no way
necessitate a clash between them. Only the aggressive economic,
cultural(-mediatic), and political(-military) penetration of the
Western civilization into other (particularly Arabo-Muslim)
civilizational areas can. indeed result in clashes. In this sense,
Samuel Huntington's seminal book (The Clash of Civilizations and the
Remaking of World Order. New York, 1998) is more an invitation and an
agenda for Western imperial penetration into other - chiefly
Arabo-Muslim - civilizational areas, than it is a historical
description of the contemporary world situation. Salim Rashid's
volume demonstrates this viewpoint clearly, among others, and recent
events in the Middle East confirm this evaluation. However, the
originality of each living civilization requires that the eventual
construction of a universal civilization be brought about through
dialogue and consensus building.

On the other hand, effective and fertile dialogue among
civilizations on equal footing is only possible between partners who
consider each other as equals. Again, recent events in the Middle
East have demonstrated that only politically balanced power relations
can provide such a ground and serve as a counterbalance to
Anglo-American transnational econocracy. In this perspective, the
next step towards globalization should be the reinforcement of
currently existing civilization-states such as India and China, as
well as the constitution of new ones, such as the European Union. The
authentic political representation of the Arab-Muslim civilization in
this international dialogue is a particularly timely and salient
issue. It cannot be done by dividing the Muslim world and replacing
the dialogue with the Organization of the State of Islamic Conference
with "multiple unilateralism" (Hubert Verdine) involving
individually weak and intimidated Arab, or other, Muslim states.

In this phase of globalization, the installation and perpetuation
of Western econocratic world hegemony by means of the unilateral
diffusion of Western merchandise and merchandized mass media
products, as well as by the migration of individuals from various
civilizational background as cheap manpower, are unproductive for the
construction of a universally accepted world civilization. Such
actions can additionally create chaotic socio-political conditions,
awkward problems (e.g. in Canada, where the most important immigrant
population now has Chinese as its mother tongue and writing system),
the decomposition of families, and individual alienation. The
promotion of such historical processes could produce a hotbed for
both xenophobia and supremacism. The massive penetration of alien
populations can engender feelings of invasion and generate
xenophobia. (Furthermore, democratization is not necessarily a
solution for deeply divided societies; the mechanic application of
'democratic' majoritarianism can lead to a dictatorship by fixed
majority blocks.) In this context, xenophobia should not be confused
with racism; xenophobia can be attributed simply to situations,
whereas racism involves peoples' inherent, constitutive, and
substantive characteristics. By crossing a border, a person can
nullify his state as a 'foreigner', but he cannot change his race in
this way. Racism, on the other hand, is a form of supremacism, and
supremacism, as a prejudicial ideology, can be based not only on race
but also on religion, oligarchic heritage, etc. Again, the assertion
of existing anthropological group differences itself refers to the
scientific field and issue of genetics, and should therefore not be
equated simply with racism.

If a dialogue among civilizations is the key to a safe future",
we should consider this dialogue not only in terms of an academic
dialogue, but also as an exchange among actors in international
politics. However, a civilizational dialogue among international
actors can only occur when each actor recognizes the equal sovereign
might of his partners. Thus the constitution of a number of strong,
independent civilization-states is a condition for this dialogue and
the key to a safe future for all peoples and states, be they Western
or Arabic or other; it is the key to mutual international security
based on world-wide consent and not on dictate.

NOTES:

'Trade' refers to the increasing number of financial
transactions - such as cosmopolitan transnational and multinational
capital exports - operating on the basis of symbols instead of on
natural or transformed raw materials.

A parallel can be drawn between these and the Trivarga:
Dharma (adherence to the (pre)Scripture); Kama (race-preservation
through love); and Artha (self-preservation through economic and
ecological activity).

The Sikh's religion, for example, is related to Gurmuki
writing, Buddhism to Prakrit, the natural Pali, Western Chiristian to
Latin, and Orthodox to Cyrillic.

Western sciences, which constitute a basis of our axiomatic
belief system, are related to their own particular writing system.
E.g., chemistry.

So they are all a single people with a single
language! said Yahweh. This is but the start of their
undertaking!.. It was named Babel therefore, because there Yahweh
confused the language of the whole earth."

Genesis 11:6,9

"If English is ever
adopted as the international language, it will not be on account
of its perfection as an instrument, but for economic, political,
and cultural reasons."

A. L. Guérard: Short
History of the InternationalLanguage Movement. New
York, pp. 40, 45

Communication is the real substratum of all social relations, and
language is specific to human communication. Every human being as a
"symbol-using animal" has at least a mother tongue
which is an objective criterion for his membership in a speech
community. The (primary) verbal linguistic competence acquired in an
intimate family setting as the mother tongue plays - beyond its
pragmatic function of communication - a fundamental role for the
individual's first world-view, general cognitive categorization,
social orientation and for his integration into his community's
cultural heritage. It remains a primary building block of his
personal identity during his whole life. Being a people's mother
tongue is also the guarantee for a language as such to being neither
dead (as Latin is) nor Utopian (as Esperanto and Volapük are)
but to be living.

In societies with script the "scholastically"
learned writing is already a deliberate intellectual integration in a
wider (literate) social and historical entity (perhaps an empire)
which relates the individual to what we call a civilization with
shared scripture - Bible, Koran, Buddhist or Confucian writings. On
this level of education the individual might already encounter other
languages with which his mother tongue shares - or not - one and the
same writing system (e.g. Roman, Arabic alphabets, Chinese morphemic
writing, picto-, ideo-, logograms).

On this level of formal scholarly assimilation of "writing
and reading" the language appears as a supplementary burden on
people, possibly with a net disadvantage, for whom this step
necessarily means the learning of a second language.

As far as the second language is concerned, it implies a
deliberate passage of communication between cultures. By historical
and geo-political circumstances this easing of intercultural
compenetration could be (1) reciprocal or (2) one-sided, implying
some hierarchization. In the first case the relation between contact
languages could be symbiotic, while in the second accommodative - or
even assimilative. Second language learning in the Helvetic
Confederation, for example, is a mutual process, while the learning
of Spanish by Indian immigrants in Ibero-American cities or that of
English by Hispanic immigrants in the USA are examples of the second
case. (See the exclusivist official English Language Movement in the
American States as reborn nativism.) The latter is a matter of
linguistic expansion which enlarges the cultural influence of one
speech community, while it imposes on the others a multi-layer
identity (and eventually a new enculturation) as the price for
intercultural communication and understanding, and in the extreme
maybe an alienation or acculturation. Depending on the lexical,
structural, syntactical and scriptural proximity of a mother tongue
as the "source" language to that of the learned second
language indicates the cost of this integration into a wider,
eventually global civilizational entity. Indeed, the construction of
a globalistic world order requires a thorough transnational
linguistic understanding.

Presently the development of multiform (mostly electronic)
instantaneous telecommunication - largely thanks to ubiquitous
computing - and partly that of the supersonic intercontinental mass
transport generated an intensive globalization process, even if as
yet it touched - esp. beyond the mass media such as radio and TV -
unequally (and only a small proportion of) the world population. This
fact and especially Internet generated a powerful tendency to use
English - as well as the Roman writing pattern - in many alleys of
international relations in exclusivity. The English language also
penetrated the everyday life of many societies (esp. those with
similar roots) with its idioms and "cultural configurations",
- even if the reflection of a culture in each specific language is
relative and not uniform.

We can empirically gauge the size, speed and the mechanisms of the
implicit and explicit imposition of English (Crawford) by many ways
and methods such as the number of anglicisms as neologisms, borrowed
words, loan translations in newspapers, - and even deep interference
of plain linguistic techniques (not only by phonetic and morphemic
structural elements but by paradigmatic and syntactic features) - as
well as by the statistics of the choice in second language learning.

The global and local - political and cultural - impact of these
tendencies is a subject for timely studies.

Even if in our scientifically advanced epoch all of the world's
languages have not yet been investigated by Western scholars,
accumulating knowledge of facts and their effect on linguistic
interaction helps us not only to comprehend the phenomenon but to
prevent impending tensions due to loss of identity and the feeling of
collective alienations as well as to reestablish equilibria in the
coexistence of languages based on frank linguistic cooperation. The
open, explicit discussion of the subject itself will smooth out the
uneasiness felt about the world hegemony of one of the living
languages due to "designatio unius est exclusio alterius".

Issues of discussion:

Mother tongue as a first basic building block of cultural (and
social) identification.

Imperial and other constitutions of wider near-global
civilizational spheres as an area of (second) identity determined by
script(ure)s.

The interaction of cultures by translation and second
language learning and that of civilizations by transliteration of
texts into different writing systems.

The international political impact and the cultural
significance of the diffusion of a mother tongue as a second
language (and writing): (a) language use in official (external)
international - global and regional - relations; (b) penetration of
a foreign language as a denominative tool into the ingroup
communication itself by novelties (anglicisms) in (specialized)
functional spheres (technology, science, trade diplomacy, politics,
multimedia, advertising, entertainment) in particular; and
progressively (c) colloquial use of foreign language idioms in
everyday life - in the present case - by means of the mystified use
of English expressions, stereotyped as a symbol of modern,
cosmopolitan, urban (prospective Western) lifestyle, norms and
values.

Peoples' - power elites' - and cultures' vested interest in
the spread of their mother tongue as an International or Imperial
Lingua Franca (ILF) and the story of vain efforts to constitute an
artificial international language detached from any mother tongue
(Esperanto, etc).

The impact of the present candidacy of English, - the world's
second largest language as the flagship of Western civilization - to
become an exclusive ILF for global resp. universal communication.

The (possible and probable) political confrontations around
the ILF.

The mistrust and eventual antagonism between the largest
logo-pictographic Chinese and the alphabetic English scriptural
spheres.

The status and standing of the other 3 official languages -
Arab, French and Spanish - within the "condominium of the 5
languages" of the UN as Languages of Wider Communication (cf.
official versus working languages)

The rear-guard battle of the Francophony as an ILF and the
anti-Hispanic chauvinistic tendencies to preserve the USA
exclusively as the English homeland in opposition to its
cosmopolitan rhetorics in world politics

The attitude and coexistence strategies of other major
language spheres, i.e. (within the Western civilization) Romance
(besides French, Spanish and Portuguese), Germanic, Cyrillic-Slavic;
furthermore (Islam-)Arabic, Hindi, and other alphabetic
languages (such as Bengali, Dravidian-Telugu, Korean), as well as
the non-alphabetic (syllabic) Japanese.

The issue of "neutral" arbitration of language use:
"intrinsic linguistic excellence and technological adequacy
ascribed to English" (opposed to extrinsic factors) in the
spreading of the use of English; the direction of the diffusion of
technological innovations - esp. electronic - as a "neutral"
arbitrator and the role of other means of linguistic imposition,
military and/or legal coercion, economic blackmail, trade and mass
media supported by advertising.

Outlook: global communication without hegemonic globalism and
linguistic totalitarianism: the preservation of civilizational and
cultural diversity by peaceful coexistence between ILF based on
multi-layer functional and regional division and the preservation of
mother tongues.